Q Academy of Management Review

2020, Vol. 45, No. 1, 205–229.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0299

JEALOUSY AT WORK: A TRIPARTITE MODEL

MEENA ANDIAPPAN
LUCAS DUFOUR
Montpellier Business School

Jealousy has long been a topic of study in the relational psychology literature while
remaining underexplored in the field of management, despite its potential for wide-
spread consequences within the workplace. Relying on regulatory focus theory, we
develop a tripartite model of jealousy based on the relationships between and charac-
teristics of three parties: the actor, the target, and the rival. This article makes three
contributions to the management literature. First, it explores how jealousy develops
within the workplace through examining specific relational characteristics of the actor-
target exchange, rival characteristics, and the moderating effects of the organizational
environment that can influence the emergence of jealousy. It therefore opens new
venues for research by explaining how jealousy emerges based on individual, contex-
tual, and core psychological mechanisms. Second, it expands research on regulatory
focus theory by exploring the role of regulatory focus in the interpersonal domain. Third,
based on the alignment of jealousy to a prevention regulatory focus and benign envy to
a promotion regulatory focus, it illustrates how these two emotions can be conceptual-
ized as distinct constructs with distinct implications for workplace relationships.

Relationships at work are critical to individual
functioning. Having access to the right people with
the right resources and maintaining these ties
can affect a wide range of individual outcomes,
including one’s performance, chances of being
promoted, organizational integration, and job sat-
isfaction (Balkundi, & Harrison, 2006; Flap & Völker,
2001; Morrison, 2002). When a valued relationship
comes under threat, the drive to protect these ties
can be overwhelming (Murphy & Russell, 2016) and
the conditions for jealousy can arise.
In this article we examine jealousy in the work-
place. Jealousy is the fear of losing a valued
relationship with another person because of an
actual or imagined rival for that person’s atten-
tion (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996; Heider, 1958). In an
organizational context, numerous situations can
trigger the fear of losing a valued relationship to
another individual—for example, the reorganization
of one’s team, the arrival of a newcomer to one’s
organization, or the merger of two departments
(Vecchio, 2000). Jealousy can arise whether a rival is
real, or merely the potential threat of losing a valued
relationship can cause such feelings to surface.
As much as jealousy has been a topic of re-
search in other fields, from evolutionary psychology
We are grateful to former associate editor Russell Johnson
for his insightful guidance, support, and encouragement
throughout the revision process. We also thank our three
anonymous reviews for their helpful feedback.
205
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
(e.g., Arnocky, Ribout, Mirza, & Knack, 2014) to eco-
nomics (e.g., Wang & Zou, 2014), and has been one of
the most studied social emotions in the past two de-
cades (DeSteno, 2004; Salovey, 1991), it has received
little attention in the field of management. Although
research on jealousy in adults has largely focused on
romantic relationships, theorists have argued that
the same basic process that results in sexual jealousy
also leads to jealousy in other kinds of dyadic re-
lationships through a universal jealousy mechanism
(e.g., DeSteno, Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006; Fussell &
Stollery, 2012; Harris, 2003a; Parrott, 1991; Salovey &
Rodin, 1984). Save for the earlier work of Vecchio (2000)
and Dogan and Vecchio (2001) and one empirical
study by Wang and Sung (2016), few researchers have
attempted to understand the role that jealousy plays
in our professional lives (Parrott & Smith, 1993), de-
spite its potential for wide-reaching consequences
in various types of workplace relationships, from
supervisor-subordinate to colleague relations. We
believe it is critical to study jealousy because its
presence can negatively and simultaneously impact
all three parties involved in the jealousy triad (the
jealous individual, the valued partner, and the rival).
For jealous individuals, the experience can lower
self-esteem and damage self-trust (Parrott, 2001);
valued partners may start to question their own
commitment to their relationship with the jealous
individual (Bevan, 2006; Rydell, McConnell, & Bringle,
2004); and rivals can face animosity and aggression
from the jealous individual (DeSteno et al., 2006;
206 Academy of Management Review
Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). More generally, jealousy can
hamper coworker communication, give rise to be-
havioral misinterpretations, and incite destructive
behaviors (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998b; Kim, Jung, &
Lee, 2013).
We argue for the importance of jealousy as a core
construct in the management literature by building
a tripartite model of jealousy, exploring factors that
determine how jealousy develops in organizations,
and discussing the various dysfunctional and func-
tional behavioral outcomes of the construct. Using
regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) as our
guiding framework, we develop an understanding of
the mechanisms that lead jealousy to unfold be-
tween the actor (the individual likely to feel jeal-
ousy), the target (the object of the existing, desired
relationship), and the rival (the individual perceived
as a threat to the desired relationship). Regulatory
focus theory posits that people are driven by two
self-regulation systems: a prevention focus or a
promotion focus. A prevention focus is concerned
with “protection, safety, and responsibility” (Higgins
& Spiegel, 2004: 172), while a promotion focus is
concerned with “advancement, aspirations, and ac-
complishment” (Higgins & Spiegel, 2004: 172). We
suggest that by using a prevention focus to un-
derstand the jealousy experience and a promotion
focus to understand the benign envy experience, we
can clearly identify and distinguish the drivers and
consequences of jealousy from those of benign
envy—one of our central objectives in this article.
This study makes three important contributions
to the budding literature on jealousy in organi-
zational settings. First, we develop a theoretical
model of triadic, workplace jealousy, opening
new venues for research based on individual,
contextual, and core psychological mechanisms.
To our knowledge, a complete conceptual model
of jealousy considering the impact of the charac-
teristics of the actor, the target, and the rival,
while examining influential factors of the exter-
nal environment, has not yet been presented in
the management literature. Second, we explore
the role of regulatory focus in the interpersonal
domain as opposed to the task domain, where it
has traditionally been studied (Lanaj, Chang, &
Johnson, 2012). In doing so we contribute to the
recent trend of exploring the implications of reg-
ulatory focus theory on interpersonal relations
(e.g., Johnson, King, Lin, et al., 2017; Johnson, Lin,
Kark, et al., 2017). Third, based on the alignment
of each emotion to a type of regulatory focus,
we illustrate how jealousy and benign envy are
January
conceptually distinct constructs that differ sig-
nificantly on the basis of their drivers, their at-
tentional foci, and their behavioral outcomes.
In what follows we first review the existing lit-
erature on jealousy, including an examination of
the contrasting concepts of jealousy and envy and
the empirical and theoretical insights developed
in the social psychology literature addressing
jealousy. We then explore regulatory focus theory,
which we use to develop our jealousy model. This
is followed by our tripartite model of jealousy,
involving three parties: the actor, the target, and
the rival. Last, we discuss the theoretical and
managerial implications of our model and ave-
nues for future jealousy research in the manage-
ment domain.
JEALOUSY: AN OVERVIEW
Jealousy is the fear of losing a valued relation-
ship with another person because of an actual or
imagined rival for that person’s attention
(DeSteno & Salovey, 1996). Traditionally, jealousy
has been the purview of psychology researchers,
who have paid attention to two major types of
jealousy: romantic jealousy and sibling rivalry
(Harris & Darby, 2010). From an evolutionary per-
spective, romantic jealousy is thought to have
arisen to alert an individual to the threat of losing
a mate (e.g., Buunk & Dijkstra, 2006). Sibling ri-
valry arises to heighten children’s awareness
of threats to parental security and attention
(Volling, Kennedy, & Jackey, 2010). Management
researchers have begun to consider evolutionary
perspectives (e.g., Colarelli, 2003; Nicholson,
1998), and many behaviors that appear in orga-
nizations are grounded in the seeds of psycho-
logical mechanisms (Buunk, aan’t Goor, & Solano,
2010). At work, jealousy may arise in a range of
circumstances: between coworkers eagerly com-
peting for the attention of a supervisor, between
colleagues when a newcomer enters their de-
partment, between supervisors managing the
same valuable employee. Additionally, Muise,
Christofides, and Desmarais’s (2009) study has
suggested that being constantly reminded of a
threat to a relationship increases an individual’s
jealousy tendencies, as is often the case in work-
places, where workers may see rivals daily. Thus,
workplaces are breeding grounds for intense
emotions in terms of rivalry and insecurity, since
work relationships affect career aspirations and
responsibilities, entrants to one’s workspace are
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
frequent (creating new rivals), resources are
scarce, and exit carries high costs.
Whether jealousy is a specific or blended emotion
is still debated in the psychology literature (Buss,
2014). Some researchers have hypothesized that
jealousy is a mixture of component emotions, con-
taining sadness, anger, and fear (Mize, Pineda, Blau,
Marsh, & Jones, 2014; Zammuner, 2011), with all
emotions experienced simultaneously (Sharpsteen,
1991). Others have suggested that the emotions felt
during an episode of jealousy change over time as
appraisals change (Fussell & Stollery, 2012). Al-
though we do not enter into the debate, by dis-
tinguishing jealousy from other emotions (like envy)
and examining the distinct motivational cues and
functional outcomes of jealousy, we treat jealousy
as a unique emotion.
Jealousy and Envy
Jealousy is commonly confounded with envy
(e.g., Bers & Rodin, 1984; Breaugh & Farabee, 2012;
Frewen & Lundberg, 2012; Kim et al., 2013; Smith &
Kim, 2007), and the popular use of the terms envy
and jealousy interchangeably has been a source of
contention for many scholars (Foster, 1972; Guerrero
& Andersen, 1998a; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey &
Rodin, 1984; Smith & Kim, 2007). As a concept, jeal-
ousy is tied to envy, because the feeling of envy
often occurs in concert with jealousy—we are more
likely to feel that a relationship is threatened by a
rival when that rival has qualities we want for
ourselves. In this article we view jealousy as a type
of social comparison–based emotion (like envy),
where we compare ourselves to a potential rival. If
we view that rival as superior, envy arises. If we
further believe that our relationship with a target is
threatened by this rival, jealousy arises. Although
jealousy is confined to valued relationships, while
envy may occur in a wider range of circumstances,
we believe that given the wide-ranging impact
jealousy can have in the workplace (as detailed
below), it is a construct worthy of attention in the
management literature.
It is unsurprising that jealousy and envy are of-
ten conflated: their precipitating events are often
seen in concert; moreover, both jealousy and envy
can be characterized by negative affective re-
actions to the better fortune or accomplishments of
others (Smith & Kim, 2007), and both may be seen as
a form of (potential, in the case of jealousy) relative
deprivation (Bolino & Turnley, 2009). However, the
conceptual differences are clear: jealousy occurs
207
in a triad and is a form of fear that occurs when
one’s valued relationship with another feels
threatened by a real or imagined rival (DeSteno &
Salovey, 1996; Heider, 1958), whereas envy occurs
in a dyad and is the painful result of an unflattering
social comparison with another person who is su-
perior in terms of their possessions or accom-
plishments (Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim,
2007). It is worthwhile to note that jealousy is a
phenomenon that may be largely illusory, al-
though the effects of such illusions are real to the
jealous party, and often anticipatory, since we of-
ten fear the expected threat of a rival more than the
actuality (Vecchio, 2000). Envy, meanwhile, is more
often based on the actual qualities, achievements,
or possessions one either wants or wishes the other
did not have (e.g., a luxury car or language skills).
Researchers have recently started to delineate
between two forms of envy: benign and malicious
(Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009). Both
forms seek to overcome the competitive disad-
vantage one suffers, but benign envy aims at im-
proving one’s own position, whereas malicious
envy aims at damaging the position of the supe-
rior rival. Table 1 explores and delineates the re-
lationship among jealousy, malicious envy, and
benign envy.
It is critical to clearly distinguish between be-
nign and malicious envy since we propose that
within the jealousy experience, malicious envy is
the defining emotion felt by the actor toward the
rival, and it is this malicious envy experience that
drives perceptions of insecurity suffered by the
actor. Research suggests that envy is a necessary
component of the jealousy experience (Tipton,
Benedictson, Mahoney, & Hartnett, 1978). Envy is
more likely to take the malicious form the more
undeserved the envier judges a situation to be and
the less control the envier feels they have over the
situation (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2012).
Envy is more likely to take the benign form when
the envier appraises the situation as deserved and
controllable. We argue that because actors who
feel jealous tend to judge their rival as undeserving
of the attention of the target (Parrott, 2001), and be-
cause jealousy often comes with the experience of
losing control over a situation (Giordano, Copp,
Longmore, & Manning, 2015), malicious envy will
be triggered. We next outline the consequences of
jealousy and envy to the actor, target, rival, and
organization.
Consequences of jealousy for the actor. When
suffering from jealousy, individuals commonly
208 Academy of Management Review January

TABLE 1
A Conceptual Comparison of Distinctions Between Jealousy, Malicious Envy, and Benign Envy

Construct Jealousy Envy

Description Triadic; fear of losing a valued
relationship with another
person because of an actual or
imagined rival for partner’s
attention (DeSteno & Salovey,
1996; Heider, 1958)
Dyadic; pain occurring as a result of an unflattering social comparison
with another person who is superior in terms of valued possession,
characteristic, or achievement (Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith & Kim,
2007)

Starting state Has Has not

Forms Malicious envy Benign envy

Driver Threat of loss, exclusion, or Desire to even out competitive Desire to even out competitive
abandonment (Espejo, 2007) disadvantage by harming the disadvantage by improving
position of the rival (Crusius oneself by moving upward
& Lange, 2014) (Crusius & Lange, 2014)

Affective experience Anxiety, suspicion, anger, Frustration, inferiority, Frustration, inferiority, admiration
rejection (Theiss & Solomon, resentment (Van de Ven, (Van de Ven et al., 2009)
2006) Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009)

Attentional focus Protecting one’s relationship Means to degrade rival (Crusius Means to improve one’s outcome
(Harris & Darby, 2010) & Lange, 2014) (Crusius & Lange, 2014)

Outcomes for focal • Increased target uncertainty; • Avoidance orientation (Crusius • Approach orientation (Crusius
actor increased relationship & Lange, 2014) & Lange, 2014)
uncertainty (Theiss & Solomon, • Fear of failure (Lange & Crusius, • Hope for success (Lange &
2006) 2015) Crusius, 2015)
• Increased feelings of inferiority
(Wang & Sung, 2016)
• Alertness to threats (Harris &
Darby, 2010)

Behavioral outcomes • Aggression (DeSteno,
toward rival Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006)
• Sabotage; attempts to discredit; • Decreased information sharing • Increased admiration;
extreme competitiveness
(Dogan & Vecchio, 2001)
• Hostility; decreased desire for • Positive regard (Crusius &
friendship (Salovey & Rodin, 1984) Lange, 2014)
(Dunn & Schweitzer, 2004) increased willingness
• Desire to hurt (Cohen-Charash to learn (Cohen-Charash,
& Mueller, 2007) 2009; Van de Ven et al., 2009)
• Unethical behaviors (Gino & • Prosocial behaviors (Tai
Pierce, 2009) et al., 2012)
• Social undermining (Tai,
Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012)

Behavioral outcomes • Possessiveness; protective

toward target actions (Harris & Darby, 2010)
• Monitoring behaviors
(Rodriguez, DiBello, &
Neighbors, 2015)
• Withholding of resources
(Keltner, Gruenfeld, &
Anderson, 2003; Leary, Twenge,
& Quinlivan, 2006)
• Approach behaviors: efforts
to enhance relationship;
compensatory interest
(Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen,
Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995)

(Continued)
2020 Andiappan and Dufour 209

TABLE 1
(Continued)

Construct Jealousy Envy

Outcomes for the • Decreased engagement in
organization OCBs and individual OCBs
(Wang & Sung, 2016)
• Decreased individual
performance; decreased
work quality due to distraction
(Dogan & Vecchio, 2001)
• Negative effects on group
performance, group cohesion,
and social loafing due to
feelings of injustice (Duffy
& Shaw, 2000)
• Goal disengagement (Lange
& Crusius, 2015)
• Increased job performance
(Tai et al., 2012)
• Increased work motivation
(Van de Ven et al., 2009)
• Increased work effort (Sterling,
van de Ven, & Smith, 2016)
• Setting of more difficult work
goals (Lange & Crusius, 2015)

experience increased uncertainty and agitation
about their target’s interest in the relationship
(their commitment) and the longevity of the rela-
tionship itself (Theiss & Solomon, 2006), and they
often have a heightened alertness to relationship
threats (Harris & Darby, 2010). When suffering from
malicious envy, individuals are more likely to
adopt an avoidance orientation (Crusius & Lange,
2014) and fear failure (Lange & Crusius, 2015).
When experiencing benign envy, however, in-
dividuals are more likely to adopt an approach
orientation (Crusius & Lange, 2014) and hope for
successful outcomes (Lange & Crusius, 2015).
Consequences of jealousy for the rival. Studies
suggest that experiencing jealousy or mali-
cious envy results in similar reactions toward
one’s rival. Jealous individuals may resort to
aggressive behaviors (DeSteno et al., 2006),
including sabotage, competitiveness, and at-
tempts to discredit or discourage their rival’s
work (Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). Comparably, in-
dividuals experiencing malicious envy may be
tempted to harm their rival (Cohen-Charash &
Mueller, 2007), engage in unethical behaviors
against their rival (Gino & Pierce, 2009), and
attempt to socially undermine this individual
(Tai, Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012). Those ex-
periencing malicious envy also express a de-
creased desire for friendship with their rival
(Salovey & Rodin, 1984) and avoid information
sharing (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2004). In contrast,
those experiencing benign envy often express
positive regard (Crusius & Lange, 2014) and in-
creased admiration for their rival, and display
an increased willingness to learn from (Cohen-
Charash, 2009; Van de Ven et al., 2009) and en-
gage in prosocial behaviors toward their rival
(Tai et al., 2012).
Consequences of jealousy for the organization.
Jealousy can result in decreased engagement
in general organizational citizenship behaviors
(OCBs)—such as attendance at work—and indi-
vidual OCBs—such as helping others with their
duties (Wang & Sung, 2016). Jealousy may also
decrease performance and work quality because
of the distraction of the jealousy experience
(Dogan & Vecchio, 2001). Malicious envy has
negative effects on group performance, co-
hesion, and social loafing owing to the feeling of
injustice suffered by the focal actor, along with
goal disengagement (Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Lange
& Crusius, 2015). In contrast, benign envy can
increase job performance (Tai et al., 2012) and
work motivation (Van de Ven et al., 2009). Jeal-
ousy may also have positive performance effects
for the rival in certain cases—for instance, if the
actor conducts a social comparison resulting in
the display of contempt toward the rival, this
may result in increased rival task performance
(Melwani & Barsade, 2011).
Although jealousy and malicious envy are simi-
lar in several respects, jealousy can be uniquely
identified based on its motivational factors, atten-
tional focus, and target outcomes. First, jealousy is
based on a fear of loss, whereas both forms of envy
are driven by a desire to eliminate the superiority of
a rival’s position, possessions, or characteristics. In
the case of malicious envy, this goal is accom-
plished through harming the rival and bringing the
rival down to one’s own level (Crusius & Lange,
2014).
Second, the attentional focus during a jealousy
experience is on protecting the safety of one’s re-
lationship (Harris & Darby, 2010), while when
experiencing malicious envy, one’s attention is
more often focused on ways to degrade one’s rival
210 Academy of Management Review
to the level where one feels the rival ought to be
(Crusius & Lange, 2014). In that degrading one’s
rival may also be a means to protect one’s re-
lationship, these behavioral strategies may not
always be mutually exclusive; however, given
that the jealousy experience may arise even with
an imagined rival, jealousy’s attentional focus
and its resulting behaviors are more likely to be
directed toward the target than the rival.
Third, jealousy can be differentiated based on
its outcomes toward the target, which are seen only
in the triadic jealousy experience and are absent
from the dyadic envy experience. Outcomes di-
rected at the target from the actor include posses-
siveness, protective actions (Harris & Darby, 2010),
and monitoring behaviors (Rodriguez, DiBello,
& Neighbors, 2015), along with the withholding
of resources, in hopes of controlling the tar-
get and preventing relationship loss (Keltner,
Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003; Leary, Twenge, &
Quinlivan, 2006). In rare cases jealousy can also
result in positive approach behaviors directed
at enhancing the actor-target relationship, such
as showing compensatory interest in the target
aside from their obligatory relationship role
(Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, &
Eloy, 1995).
Last, both jealousy and malicious envy result in
a win-lose end state (operating with the assump-
tion that only one party can be the valued partner
in a relationship), whereas benign envy can be
resolved without affecting the other party, result-
ing in a win-win end state where both parties gain.
From this analysis it is clear that jealousy can be
distinguished from both forms of envy. We next
explore the relationship between jealousy and
regulatory focus theory, which grounds our theo-
retical model.
Jealousy and Regulatory Focus Theory
Regulatory focus theory provides a useful frame-
work for understanding how jealousy emerges within
workplace relationships. The theory proposes
that beyond the hedonic idea that individuals
approach pleasure and avoid pain, there are dif-
ferent ways of approaching pleasure and avoid-
ing pain (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Higgins (1997) proposed
that individuals have two basic self-regulatory sys-
tems used to reach goals. One system focuses on
achievement and promotion goals, while the other
system focuses on the avoidance of punishment
and prevention goals. Goals with a promotion
January
focus concentrate on attaining one’s hopes and
aspirations, satisfying growth needs (Stam, van
Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010). Goals with a pre-
vention focus concentrate on duties, responsibilities,
and obligations (what one ought to do), satisfying
safety and security needs (Liberman, Idson,
Camacho, & Higgins, 1999). Regulatory focus can
be measured as a chronic predisposition but
can also be situationally induced, depending on
whether one’s context is framed through a pre-
vention (losses and nonlosses) or promotion (gains
and nongains) lens (Higgins & Cornwell, 2016).
Each regulatory focus has contrasting conse-
quences for perception and decision making, as
well as emotional reactions and behavior (Higgins,
1997, 1998). Individuals with a promotion focus are
more concerned with accomplishments, use ap-
proach and eagerness as goal attainment strate-
gies, are more willing to take risks, and experience
high-activation positive emotions such as joy and
low-activation negative emotions such as discour-
agement and dejection (e.g., Brockner & Higgins,
2001; Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Individuals operating
with a prevention focus are more concerned with
meeting obligations and maintaining their safety
and security, and they use avoidance and vigilance
as goal strategies, are generally risk averse, and
experience low-activation positive emotions such
as relief and quiescence and high-activation neg-
ative emotions such as agitation and fear (Higgins,
1987). Regulatory focus theory has been used by
researchers to study a wide range of phenomena
(e.g., Higgins & Cornwell, 2016; Zou, Scholer, &
Higgins, 2014). However, to our knowledge, this
theory has not been used to study jealousy or envy
at work. Table 2 outlines the distinctions between
the promotion and prevention regulatory foci.
Regulatory focus theory describes a fundamen-
tal motivational drive concerned with two poten-
tials: the potential to attain positive outcomes—a
promotion focus—and the potential to avoid neg-
ative outcomes—a prevention focus (Higgins,
Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994). Envy begins with
the desire for what another person has (e.g., access
to a high-value individual), and benign envy is
driven by the need to better oneself and enhance
one’s standing (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Parrott &
Smith, 1993). We propose that because benign envy
is essentially concerned with gains and nongains,
it lends itself to being aligned with a promotion
focus orientation. In contrast, jealousy is driven
by the motivation to maintain what one has
(e.g., access to a high-value individual) and avoid
2020 Andiappan and Dufour 211

TABLE 2
Distinctions Between Prevention and Promotion Regulatory Focusa

Component Prevention Focus Promotion Focus

Primary concerns Safety and security Nurturance and growth

Match to self Ought Ideal
Emotional range Quiescence to agitation Cheerful to dejected
Preferred strategy • Vigilance to avoid losses • Eagerness to ensure gains
• Avoidance behavior • Approach behavior
Primary goals based on • Felt duty/responsibility • Aspiration
• Fulfilling obligations • Hopes
Need To be affiliated To advance
Nature of goal To maintain status quo To exceed status quo
Success Nonloss Gain
Failure Loss Nongain
a
From Brockner and Higgins (2001) and Higgins and Cornwell (2016).

behaviors that decrease one’s standing. Jealousy
is concerned with losses and nonlosses, leading
itself to being aligned with a prevention focus
orientation. Since jealousy and benign envy focus
on the potential to avoid losses and seek gains, just
as the two opposing foci of promotion and pre-
vention do, regulatory focus theory is particularly
appropriate for distinguishing jealousy from be-
nign envy and identifying the unique outcomes of
each emotion.
We propose that regulatory focus will influence
the experience of jealousy for two reasons. First,
individuals’ regulatory focus affects how they di-
rect their attention and effort (Scholer & Higgins,
2008). Since a prevention focus is driven toward
actions that avoid loss, it is likely that those expe-
riencing jealousy and fearing the loss of their target
will closely monitor their relationship with the tar-
get and their perceptions of the viability of the rival
(through social comparison mechanisms). Thus, in
addition to examining characteristics of the actor,
we study attributes of the actor-target relationship
and perceptions of the rival in our model.
Second, individuals can experience situational
regulatory effects (Higgins, 1998; Wallace, Johnson, &
Frazier, 2009) that influence their regulatory state
during specific events, leading to temporary shifts in
regulatory focus—meaning that a more promotion-
focused individual can move to a prevention focus in
certain contexts (Shepherd, Williams, & Patzelt, 2015).
Thus, even individuals who may have a chronic
disposition that allows them to see jealousy as a form
of challenge can influence actors to adopt a pre-
vention orientation when faced with certain situa-
tional cues (as seen in the organizational context).
Cues that emphasize security needs, fulfillment of
obligations, and potential losses commonly induce a
prevention mindset (e.g., Higgins, 1997, 1998; Wallace
& Chen, 2006), making actors experiencing these cues
more likely to view jealousy as threating. Given the
influence of context on regulatory states, we study
organizational characteristics (such as target scar-
city, the nature of rewards, and accountability) that
can foster workplace jealousy.
We next introduce our conceptual model of
jealousy (see Figure 1). This triadic model argues
that jealousy’s emergence is based on a set of
factors that stem from characteristics of the actor
themselves, their rival, their target, and their
shared organizational environment. It is important
to note that although it is beyond the scope of the
current study to examine the interactive effects of
each of the factors identified in the model, these
factors can and likely do influence one another in
affecting jealousy emergence.
THE TRIAD: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
OF JEALOUSY
The Actor
In considering traits of the jealous party, we focus
on those characteristics of the actor most likely
to affect their propensity toward jealousy based
on a prevention framework: core self-efficacy,
dependence, and past perceived betrayal. In a
meta-analysis of regulatory focus effects on work
outcomes, Lanaj et al. (2012) found that low self-
esteem and self-efficacy were linked to a pre-
vention orientation; they had hypothesized that
both low self-esteem and a prevention focus share
common motivational drives, being triggered
through self-protective tendencies. Scholars have
212 Academy of Management Review January

FIGURE 1
Jealousy: A Triadic Model From the Actor’s Perspective

The target
• Loyalty (P4a)
• Affect (P4b)
• Contribution (P4c)

The workplace

• Target scarcity
(P7a–c)
• Subjective
The actor resource rewards The rival
(P8a–c)
• Core self- • Siloed • KSAs (P5)
evaluations (P1) accountability • Perceived
• Dependence (P2) ( P9a–c) similarity with
• Past perceived actor (P6)
betrayal (P3)

Malicious envy (P10)

• Breakdown of coworker
coordination (P11)

theorized a link between low core self-evaluations
(CSEs) and avoidance or prevention orientations
(e.g., Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen, & Tan, 2012;
Johnson, Rosen, & Levy, 2008), and empirical in-
vestigations have lent support to this idea (e.g.,
Ferris et al., 2013; Ferris et al., 2011; Schmalbach
et al., 2017). Thus, our first factor focuses on the ac-
tor’s CSE, noting that suffering from low self-worth
makes an individual more likely to feel threatened
(MacDonald & Leary, 2012).
Those with a prevention mindset are concerned
with fulfilling obligations and responsibilities
(Higgins, 1997, 1998), concerned with security, and
vigilant about avoiding mistakes while fulfilling
obligations (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). Komissarouk
and Nadler (2014) argued that, as a result, such
individuals are more comfortable taking a passive
role and seeking dependency-oriented help from
those who are more knowledgeable. Studies have
shown that increased levels of dependence are
correlated with jealousy (e.g., Bevan, 2008; White,
1981), and, thus, our second factor is the actor’s
dependence on a specific party (in this case the
target).
Higgins (1997, 1998) suggested that when people
are in a prevention mode, they are more likely
to recall information relating to the avoidance
of loss and negative outcomes, and to experi-
ence these negative outcomes intensely (Idson,
Liberman, & Higgins, 2000). We suggest that ac-
tors who have experienced past losses in the
workplace—who have lost a valued workplace
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
partner—will be more likely to experience jeal-
ousy in current work relationships. Thus, our third
factor focuses on the actor’s past experiences with
perceived workplace betrayal.
Studies have suggested that low CSEs are as-
sociated with poor relationship quality (e.g.,
Chang et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2013). We submit
that although individuals with low CSE and high
dependency and who have suffered from past
betrayals may have more difficulty managing
high-quality relationships than those who have
not suffered, they do have the ability to form high-
quality relationships (see Bernerth, Armenakis,
Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2008, and Schyns, 2004),
and, moreover, they are likely to highly value
and guard these relationships. For example,
Reina and Reina (2006) found that those who had
experienced betrayals in the past were better
able to value their current relationships. Thus,
we propose that it is precisely those who suffer
(and have suffered) from such setbacks who will
most highly guard such relationships when they
are able to attain them, knowing how easy
they are to lose. We next outline propositions
addressing the focal actor’s CSEs, dependence,
and past perceived betrayal, and how these
characteristics relate to jealousy.
CSEs. Those with a prevention focus are driven
by the need to feel safe and secure (Neubert,
Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008), leav-
ing them seeking affirmation from others since
they are less secure with their own worth (Shah,
Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). Studies have found
that those who suffer from low self-worth are more
likely to feel threatened by relationship rivals
(e.g., MacDonald & Leary, 2012; Muise et al., 2009).
As argued by Tai et al. (2012) in their examination
of envy, CSEs are a key element in determining
individual threat responses. CSEs contain four
underlying traits: self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus
of control, and emotional stability (Judge, Locke, &
Durham, 1997). These four constructs are sugges-
tive of our sense of self in terms of competence,
worth, and self-control (Judge, Van Vianen, & De
Pater, 2004), and those with high CSEs tend to be
able to face threats in a pragmatic and construc-
tive manner (Tai et al., 2012). This makes them less
likely to feel threatened by rival colleagues. Self-
esteem plays an important role in the emergence
of jealousy because jealousy is, to some degree,
determined by the comparison of a rival’s traits
to one’s own (e.g., Broemer & Diehl, 2004; Dijkstra
& Buunk, 2001). Both low self-esteem and a
213
prevention focus are triggered by the tendency to
protect oneself (Lanaj et al., 2012). Possessing a
more critical view of oneself may not in itself
make an individual more jealous but, in the face of
a rival, should serve to increase the likelihood of
feeling threatened. Thus, we suggest that those
with less favorable CSEs will be more likely to be
jealous of their rivals.
Proposition 1: Actors with less favorable
CSEs will be more likely to experience
jealousy toward a rival than will actors
with more favorable CSEs.
Dependence. Komissarouk and Nadler (2014)
found that individuals with a prevention focus
tend to seek dependency-oriented help—that is,
they are more likely to depend on others to help
solve problems, which leaves them increasingly
dependent on their partners for help in the future.
These researchers reasoned that a prevention-
focused fear of failure leads people to seek aid,
thus making access to resourceful other parties
critical for their functioning. Dependency arises
when an individual perceives that only one per-
son can satisfy their needs, and, thus, they must
rely solely on that person for fulfillment of that
need (Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998; Davis,
Swan, & Gambone, 2012). We suggest that for such
individuals, their dependence on another party to
fulfill their obligations (such as completing a
project) will influence their likelihood of feeling
jealous. In the case where the target is one’s su-
pervisor, the resources that the supervisor can
provide in terms of their relationship may be
tangible support (e.g., databases) or intangible
support (e.g., expertise). In the case of a colleague
or subordinate target, actor dependence may be
based on that person’s providing access to a val-
ued network.
Past research has shown that a person’s sense of
reliance in a relationship mediates reactions to
jealousy (Rotenberg, Shewchuk, & Kimberley, 2001),
which means that those who seek help from another
are more likely to suffer from jealousy. The more
dependent an individual is on a relationship, the
more they have to lose if their partner changes alli-
ances (Davis et al., 2012)—particularly in the case
where that individual has few options for new re-
lations (Demirtas-Madran, 2011). We suggest that
actors who believe they are the dependent party
in an actor-target relationship, with resources im-
portant to their career happiness in the hands of
their target supervisor, subordinate, or colleague,
214 Academy of Management Review
will feel more anxious about the status of their
relationship.
Proposition 2: Actors with high levels of
perceived dependence on their target
will be more likely to experience jeal-
ousy toward a rival than will actors
with low levels of perceived depen-
dence on their target.
Perceived past betrayal. Individuals with a
prevention focus engage in vigilance strategies
to avoid being hurt and/or experiencing loss
(Higgins & Cornwell, 2016). When we have been
wronged in the past, we become more vigilant to
avoid being wronged in the future (Sagarin,
Becker, Guadagno, Nicastle, & Millevoi, 2003).
Those who have been in serious, committed re-
lationships in the past are more likely to experi-
ence distress, and to respond more intensely,
when faced with the potential of betrayal (Murphy,
Vallacher, Shackelford, Bjorklund, & Yunger, 2006).
An actor’s fear of being wronged is unrelated to the
current partner’s loyalty or character but, rather,
has to do with the actor’s history and expectations
about being hurt. Southard and Abel (2010) sug-
gested that the loss of a previous partner may give
rise to the expression of jealousy more readily,
particularly the longer the actor has invested in the
relationship. In romantic relationships betrayal
can take various forms, from sharing a partner’s
secrets to physical infidelity (Wilson, Mattingly,
Clark, Weidler, & Bequette, 2011).
As in romantic relationships, we consider work-
place betrayal to be in the eyes of each individual—
for one actor, having a department head give
funding to another subordinate’s project instead
of their own may be viewed as a betrayal, while
for another actor, having a colleague invite an
outgroup colleague to their birthday celebration
may be viewed as a breach. In this article we take
the view that it is the actor who interprets whether
an act constitutes a betrayal of their relationship,
with the acknowledgment that this judgment will
vary with each individual. We argue that a sub-
ordinate who has had the experience of having
preferential treatment from a previous supervisor
or colleague only to have their favor lost to an-
other employee will be more likely to feel pro-
tective and wary of their current relationship with
their target. Further, an employee who believes
they have been betrayed by their current target in
the past is likely to fear the potential of further
breaches. This type of trust breach may lead to
January
increased vigilance on the part of the actor in
terms of jealousy-inducing situations. For exam-
ple, Ballinger, Schoorman, and Lehman (2009)
found that when a new leader entered an orga-
nization, trust in that new leader depended on
affective reactions to the departure of the past
leader. We propose that actors who have been
hurt previously will be more likely to experience
feelings of jealousy toward a (real or perceived)
rival.
Proposition 3: Actors who have suffered
from a perceived past betrayal will be
more likely to experience jealousy to-
ward a rival than will actors who have
not suffered from a perceived past
betrayal.
The Target
Those with a prevention focus care more about
quality than quantity and are more likely to focus
on maintaining the status quo (Keller, 2006),
meaning that they are more likely to focus on
protecting existing relationships rather than
seeking new ones. In this study we distinguish
between the quality of the target and the quality
of the actor-target relationship. Jealousy con-
cerns the fear of losing a relationship with a
valued individual, where an individual is valued
because they provide the actor with tangible or
intangible resources the actor wants or needs
(e.g., emotional support, project funding). We use
the conceptualization of a resource as something
that another person values (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005), where the value of that resource is de-
termined by how much it rewards the recipient
(Emerson, 1976). This relational conceptualiza-
tion of resources encompasses a wide range of
objects, abilities, and behaviors (Huang & Knight,
2017) and allows for the understanding that
jealousy can emerge regardless of relationship
quality and regardless of the relative position
held by the target (i.e., even a lower-level target
like a subordinate can be valuable because they
provide emotional support or expertise to the
actor).
For jealousy to arise, resources need not be
limited in terms of quantity (e.g., emotional sup-
port) but must be viewed as offered in a win-lose
condition by the actor (i.e., if support is offered to
the rival, it will not be offered to the actor). Pre-
vious research has shown that owing to their
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
preference for stability, those with a prevention
focus are highly reluctant to exchange existing
possessions, even when substitutes are available
(Liberman et al., 1999), making them likely to
prefer to maintain valued ties regardless of the
costs associated. We posit that while the actor-
target relationship itself may be of high or low
quality, the target needs to be of high value to the
actor for the actor to fear the relationship’s loss.
The characteristics that determine target quality
depend on the role of the target in relation to the
actor (i.e., supervisors, subordinate, or colleague)
and the actor’s own interests. Since targets must
be of high quality to incite jealousy, we focus our
attention on the effects of variations in actor-
target relationship quality, rather than variations
in target quality.
In terms of relationship quality, we concen-
trate on the three factors shown in the leader-
member exchange relationship (LMX) literature
to determine relationship value: loyalty, affect,
and contribution (Dienesch & Liden, 1986). These
three quality measures are particularly suited to
studying the reactions of an individual with a
prevention regulatory focus. An individual with a
prevention mindset seeks safety and the ability
to fulfill obligations and duties (Neubert et al.,
2008), and wants to feel valued (Hashimoto &
Yamagishi, 2013). Seeking safety can be fulfilled
through the commitment shown by the other
party toward the actor and the relationship (loy-
alty), the need to be valued and not rejected
can be fulfilled through the care the other party
shows toward the actor (affect), and fulfilling
one’s workplace obligations will depend on the
willingness of other party to perform their orga-
nizational duties in support of shared goals
(contribution).
Loyalty is represented through support for the
member’s goals and character, affect is the exis-
tence of mutual affection between the two parties,
and contribution is measured by the quality of the
work and performance of the member. Contribu-
tions (used here as a measure of relationship
quality) are distinct from resources (used to de-
note target quality). Contributions are the value of
the work product offered to the relationship (Liden
& Maslyn, 1998) and are task oriented (Collins,
Burrus, & Meyer, 2014), whereas resources are
tangible and intangible materials of value to the
recipient and need not be task oriented, such as
access to an exclusive network or negotiating
skills. In most studies on LMX, scholars have
215
taken the follower’s view and considered re-
lationship quality to depend on the loyalty, affect,
and contribution inputs of the leader (for a review see
Martin, Guillaume, Thomas, Lee, & Epitropaki, 2016),
and since we develop our model from the actor’s
perspective, we do the same.1 In studying jealousy
induction, we focus on the actor’s perceptions of
the target’s loyalty to their relationship, the target’s
perceived contributions to the relationship, and
perceptions of the target’s affect shown in the
relationship.
Loyalty. Jealousy often represents distrust
about a partner’s loyalty (Knobloch, Solomon, &
Cruz, 2001). Uncertainty about another’s level of
commitment to a relationship that we value
drives suspicion about our partner’s motiva-
tions. Jealousy is often provoked in situations of
relationship uncertainty and is positively re-
lated to anxiety about one’s attachment to one’s
partner (e.g., Knobloch, 2005). Anxiety and un-
certainty are mood states typically associated
with a prevention focus (Gorman et al., 2012) and
are activated when individuals are faced with
unfulfilled prevention goals (Baas, De Dreu, &
Nijstad, 2011), such as diminished loyalty from
a partner. Even those individuals who had
previously enjoyed a positive relationship
with their target supervisor, subordinate, or col-
league may react with jealousy and suspicion
when they experience a breach in support or
loyalty from that person (Rydell & Bringle, 2007).
Conversely, a target who is loyal and who has
shown support for their partner in the past is less
likely to incite feelings of jealousy when a po-
tential rival presents themselves. Research
has found that when bonds between individuals
are strong and deep, the need for jealousy di-
minishes as we feel more secure in our re-
lationships (Wurmser & Jarass, 2011). Thus, we
propose that perceptions of low target loyalty
are likely to drive jealousy emergence.
1
Although this article does not focus solely on leader-
member relations, the characteristics used to measure leader-
member relationship quality can be applied to relationships
where the dynamics are similar to those viewed in leader-
member exchanges. Many of the dynamics seen in leader-
member relationships can also be seen in member-member
relationships when such relationships are characterized by
dependence, preferential treatment, and access to unique re-
sources. When the target is valued, the actor is likely to feel
dependent upon that individual, regardless of each party’s
formal hierarchical role in the organization.
216 Academy of Management Review
Proposition 4a: Targets who are per-
ceived to have lower loyalty in terms of
their relationship with the actor will be
more likely to incite feelings of jealousy
than will targets who are perceived to
have higher loyalty.
Affect. Affect simply refers to how much each
party likes one another (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).
For those with a prevention focus, the risk of
not feeling liked is of concern (Hashimoto &
Yamagishi, 2013), and studies have shown that
a prevention focus is associated with the inter-
dependent goals of harmoniously fitting in with
others and maintaining social connections (Lee,
Aaker, & Gardner, 2000). In workplace relation-
ships that are high in affect, both parties enjoy
interacting and desire a rewarding relationship
that extends beyond the professional to the per-
sonal realm. In high-affect relationships the
parties enjoy spending time together outside
the organization and aside from work role re-
quirements. We argue, on the one hand, that
actors who have enjoyed such a relationship with
their target will be less likely to feel jealous be-
cause of the security they feel in the relationship
and their extended ties with the target beyond the
workplace. On the other hand, actors who have
not developed a friendly, personal relationship
with their target that reaches beyond their work-
place interactions will be more likely to feel jeal-
ous at the thought of a rival because they feel
more easily threatened in their relationship
(Wurmser & Jarass, 2011). Without signs of affect
from the target, an actor is more likely to feel in-
secure in the relationship.
Proposition 4b: Targets who are per-
ceived to have lower affect in their re-
lationship with the actor will be more
likely to incite feelings of jealousy than
will targets who are perceived to have
higher affect in their relationship.
Contribution. Contribution is the value of the
work product that each individual offers to their
relationship (Liden & Maslyn, 1998) and has been
described as the “perception of the amount, di-
rection, and quality of work-oriented activity each
member puts forth towards the mutual goals
(explicit or implicit) of the dyad” (Dienesch &
Liden, 1986: 624). Because prevention-oriented
individuals are focused on fulfilling their
work tasks (Simo, Sallan, Fernandez, & Enache,
January
2016)—which often relies on the contribution of
others within the workplace (Collins et al.,
2014)—the work product of their partners is criti-
cal. We argue that when targets contribute little to
the relationship, this shows their lack of interest
in the shared goals of and engagement with the
actor-target relationship. If the target is not in-
terested in working toward mutual goals, it will be
difficult for an actor to accomplish their obliga-
tions. This will be particularly disturbing to actors
with a prevention mindset (Higgins, 1997), given
their strong sense of duty and obligation (Kark &
Van Dijk, 2007).
Proposition 4c: Targets who are per-
ceived to make lower contributions to
their relationship with the actor will be
more likely to incite feelings of jealousy
than will targets who are perceived to
make higher contributions.
The Rival
In their recent study, Li and Masuda (2016) found
that individuals with a prevention (versus pro-
motion) focus showed greater distress about in-
dividuals they viewed as their enemies (an enemy
being someone who tried to take the individuals’
resources for their own benefit). This distress
manifested as perceptions of greater threat from
enemies, a higher subjective awareness of ene-
mies, and a more negative emotional reaction
to enemyship. Although rivals may not always
be perceived as enemies, to the extent that
prevention-focused individuals have a height-
ened awareness of other people’s actions that
may result in negative outcomes and resource
loss, we suggest that prevention-focused indivi-
duals will have similar responses to their rivals.
When experiencing jealousy, one’s initial reac-
tion is often an appraisal of one’s potential rival
(Harris & Darby, 2010). Prevention-focused em-
ployees are more likely to conduct threat assess-
ments of rivals, including estimating the potential
for harm that the rival represents (McMullen,
Shepherd, & Patzelt, 2009). Moreover, a prevention
focus orients people to discrepancies (Brockner &
Higgins, 2001)—for example, between one’s cur-
rent and ideal state. We suggest that one way
this vigilance of discrepancy and harm mani-
fests itself in a jealousy context is through the
engagement of social comparison between one-
self and one’s rival. Social comparison theory
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
(Festinger, 1954) proposes that individuals eval-
uate their own standing by comparing them-
selves with others, and studies suggest that
people tend to compare themselves with rivals
on the dimensions that contribute to those rivals’
value to their partner (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2001).
We note that jealousy may occur even if one’s
rival is seen as inferior to oneself (Neu, 1980);
jealousy is an upward social comparison–based
emotion, but is only upward to the extent that
one’s target may find one’s rival more appealing
than oneself.
In the target-actor context, we suggest that the
appraisal of a rival will include two factors: (1) an
analysis of the valued work role–related attri-
butes of the rival (their particular knowledge,
skills, and abilities, or KSAs), as compared to the
actor’s own work role–related attributes, and (2)
an analysis of how the attributes of the rival relate
to the target (the shared characteristics between
the rival and the target), as opposed to the shared
characteristics between the actor and the target.
We suggest that these factors are significant for
two reasons. First, analyzing the rival coworker’s
KSAs will be of importance because prevention-
focused individuals are concerned with their ac-
tual versus ought self. KSAs often represent the
set of traits that a person should have in their
given role (Watkins et al., 2016), making a com-
parison of the rival’s KSAs a relevant metric (as
opposed to metrics measuring the ideal self,
which would be of interest to a promotion-focused
individual). Second, we suggest that because
a prevention focus orients individuals toward
discrepancy magnitudes, the fear of a rival will
be affected by perceived discrepancies between
the rival and target (compared to discrepancies
between the actor and target). The fewer the dis-
crepancies (or greater the similarities) between
the rival and target, we argue, the greater the
actor’s concern about their own standing. This
social comparison process allows the actor not
only to evaluate their own value to the target but
also to compare their position to that of the rival
during threat assessment.
KSAs. When a prevention focus is activated,
individuals are more vigilant to avoid losses
(Higgins, 1998). In the face of a potential rival, the
fear of loss increases when this rival is perceived
to be better than oneself based on role-relevant
criteria. We argue that in the case of workplace
relationships, these evaluations of role-relevant
criteria will be focused around the KSAs that the
217
rival possesses. One of the critical components of
a relationship with a high-value target is that the
actor must possess certain workplace qualities
that prove valuable to their target (Cross &
Sproull, 2004). For example, a rival subordinate
who has more expertise in a certain area than
oneself is likely to attract positive attention from
the target supervisor. We suggest that this set
of KSAs will differ by target-actor relationships,
based on what each target values in their actor.
Even if the rival does not possess unique KSAs,
jealousy may occur. The appraisal process is often
one of social comparison, where the actor com-
pares their personal characteristics—particularly
those that are of importance to their target—with
those of the rival (Arnocky, Sunderani, Miller, &
Vaillancourt, 2012). We posit that when individuals
believe their qualities are inferior to those of their
rival, the individuals will see the rival as threat-
ening, and feelings of jealousy will result.
Proposition 5: Rivals who are perceived
as having high KSAs in their given role
will be more likely to incite feelings of
jealousy than will rivals who are per-
ceived as having low KSAs.
Target-rival perceived similarity. A key finding
in the social psychology literature is that simi-
larity between two individuals promotes attrac-
tion and mutual liking (Byrne, 1971). Research has
shown that people tend to associate most often
and most strongly with those whom they view
as similar to themselves (Kleinbaum, Stuart, &
Tushman, 2013)—an idea known as homophily.
In a classic study examining how employees
identify ideal subordinates and supervisors,
Hellweg (1978) found homophily to be a deter-
mining factor for both roles, where evaluators
found subordinates (and supervisors) who had
more in common with themselves to be more
persuasive in their jobs. These shared traits may
be in terms of physical characteristics, education
level, personality traits, or any number of quali-
ties, and may often include traits that are irrele-
vant to the job at hand. Within the work context,
this perceived similarity is critical for developing
strong relationships (Fairhurst, 2001), and with
respect to work relationships, perceptions of
similarity have been shown to be even more im-
portant than actual similarity between organiza-
tional members (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden,
Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). We propose that actors
who believe a rival to share characteristics with
218 Academy of Management Review
the target, particularly those that are not shared
between the actors themselves and the target,
will be more inclined to fear losing the target’s
favor.
Proposition 6: Rivals who are perceived
as having many shared traits with the
target will be more likely to incite feel-
ings of jealousy than will rivals who are
perceived as having few shared traits
with the target.
Moderators: The Workplace
Previous research has shown that general
contextual factors interact with relationship fac-
tors to cause jealousy (e.g., Rydell et al., 2004).
Studies have suggested that characteristics of the
work environment will set the stage for a certain
type of regulatory focus to be adopted (Wallace
et al., 2009), because each focus reflects the reg-
ulatory strategies required by the workplace (Van
der Vurst & Lariviere, 2016). Higgins (2000) in-
troduced the concept of regulatory fit, which oc-
curs when “the manner of people’s engagement in
an activity sustains their current goal orientation
or concerns with that activity” (Avnet & Higgins,
2006: 1). Although fit is generally conceptualized
as an alignment between one’s chronic regulatory
focus and strategic engagement, we use Avnet
and Higgins’ (2006) definition, which allows for
fit to be considered as an alignment between
current regulatory orientation (i.e., in the face of
a relationship threat) and strategic engagement
(i.e., workplace-related focus). When fit exists, it
likely increases an individual’s confidence in
their reactions and, in general, their engagement
in these reactions (whether positive or negative;
Avnet & Higgins, 2006). Since jealousy aligns itself
with a prevention framework, we suggest that a
workplace that promotes the use of prevention
engagement strategies (thus creating regulatory
fit in regard to jealousy) will serve to increase an
individual’s likely engagement in jealousy re-
actions. We therefore suggest that certain con-
textual variables of the workplace will interact
with our previously identified actor, target, and
rival factors to increase their predictive strength.
Higgins (1997, 1998) argued that three types of
situational cues are related to a prevention focus:
those that emphasize security needs, those that
emphasize potential losses, and those that em-
phasize the fulfillment of obligations. Our three
January
moderators stem from this theoretical con-
tention. Empirical evidence demonstrates that
when individuals in relationships have few at-
tractive alternatives, their felt relationship secu-
rity diminishes because their reliance on those
relationships for positive outcomes increases
(e.g., Rydell et al., 2004). As a consequence, we
suggest that individuals’ need for security will be
heightened when there are few high-quality tar-
gets available in the workplace. Thus, our first
moderator is target scarcity—that is, the number
of high-quality targets that are available to the
actor within a given workplace (where scarcity
increases reliance on a target).
Second, studies have suggested that one of the
evolutionary underpinnings of felt relationship
threat is the concern for lost partner resources
(e.g., Harris, 2003b). We suggest then that an in-
dividual’s sensitivity toward losses will increase
when the rewarding of resources within an orga-
nization is subjective and could be easily lost if
access to a valued target is lost. Thus, our second
moderator is the subjectivity of the resource re-
wards provided (i.e., the target’s ability to allocate
resources).
Third, Gittell and Douglass (2012) suggested
that organizations with siloed (instead of shared)
responsibility for outcomes cause individuals to
focus on individual goals. We argue that work-
places where accountability for work tasks and
performance is siloed will result in an emphasis
on the fulfillment of obligations. Accordingly, our
third moderator is siloed accountability (i.e., how
narrowly shared responsibility for work output
is within an organization; Ganzglass, Foster, &
Newcomer, 2014).
Target scarcity. Target scarcity refers to the
limited number of individuals in a particular role
(supervisors, subordinates, and colleagues) who
can provide the resources valued by the actor.
According to social psychologists, our first pangs
of jealousy begin in childhood when we compete
with siblings for our parents’ attention (Volling,
McElwain, & Miller, 2002). In the parent-child re-
lationship, parents often provide children with
guidelines that govern their behavior and regu-
late the potential for rivalry among siblings, but
these guidelines are notably absent within orga-
nizations (Milkman, Huang, & Schweitzer, 2010).
This leaves room for ambiguity, and, in fact, even
practices put in place to foster cooperation among
colleagues often lead to rivalry (e.g., Alper,
Tjosvold, & Law, 2000). In the workplace, target
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
scarcity for target supervisors would, for example,
mean that there were few supervisors who could
readily provide access to an expensive database
to their subordinates (the actor). Studies have
shown that when desired resources (such as high-
quality targets) are known to be limited, social
comparisons and evaluations of one’s stand-
ing are more likely to occur (Prediger, Vollan, &
Herrmann, 2014).
We argue that the feeling of scarcity and its
resulting evaluation of one’s relevant standing
will serve to moderate each of the relationships
described above among actor, target, and rival
attributes on jealousy. For example, we have ar-
gued that the more dependent a manager is on an
employee to provide good work product, the more
likely it is jealousy will arise (Proposition 2)—and
we furthermore argue that the effects of this de-
pendency on jealousy emergence will become
increasingly significant as the number of high-
quality targets diminishes, since an actor facing
scarcity is more likely to evaluate their standing. In
terms of the target characteristic of loyalty (Prop-
osition 4a), for example, we argue that when there
are few other high-quality options for the actor
(e.g., a subordinate cannot work with a different
manager who is such an expert in their field), the
effects of the lack of loyalty from the manager on
jealousy emergence will increase as fewer expert
managers are available, since an actor is more
likely to evaluate their standing. Last, in a context
where the targets are scarce, the evaluation of the
rival’s KSAs (Proposition 5) would be more likely to
cause jealousy than in a context where quality
targets are numerous, since this would cause an
actor to evaluate their circumstances.
Proposition 7a: The relationship be-
tween the actor’s unfavorable CSEs and
jealousy, dependence and jealousy,
and perceived past betrayal and jeal-
ousy becomes increasingly positive as
high-quality target scarcity increases.
Proposition 7b: The relationship be-
tween the target’s low loyalty and
jealousy, low affect and jealousy, and
low contribution and jealousy becomes
increasingly positive as high-quality
target scarcity increases.
Proposition 7c: The relationship between
the rival’s KSAs and jealousy and be-
tween target-rival perceived similarity and
219
jealousy becomes increasingly positive as
high-quality target scarcity increases.
Resource reward subjectivity. Within an
organization, resources are rewarded from a
wide range of target sources: from supervisors (e.g.,
promotions) to colleagues (e.g., access to informa-
tion or grant funding) to subordinates (e.g., access
to networks and emotional support). Resource re-
ward subjectivity refers to the extent to which
resources within the organization are rewarded
based on subjective criteria. In some organi-
zations resource allocation decisions are left
largely in the hands of employees, whereas in
other workplaces the organization may enforce
strict criteria that determine how resources
are distributed (Brett & Atwater, 2001; Jafari,
Bourouni, & Amiri, 2009). In terms of the actor
variables, we can consider a manager with low
CSE (Proposition 1). If an assistant works for both
this manager and another, in a firm where this
assistant can decide where to spend more of their
time (i.e., has high reward subjectivity), we sug-
gest that the low-CSE manager is more likely to
feel jealous than they would in a firm where the
assistant did not have this right. In terms of the
target variables, we can consider a target col-
league with low perceived affect (Proposition 4b).
If this colleague is in a firm where they have the
right to decide who works on a prestigious proj-
ect with them, we suggest that the colleague’s
low affect would become more worrisome and,
thus, would be more likely to cause jealousy than
in a firm where the colleague did not have this
right.
Proposition 8a: The relationship be-
tween the actor’s unfavorable CSEs and
jealousy, dependence and jealousy,
and perceived past betrayal and jeal-
ousy becomes increasingly positive as
reward subjectivity increases.
Proposition 8b: The relationship be-
tween the target’s low loyalty and
jealousy, low affect and jealousy, and
low contribution and jealousy becomes
increasingly positive as reward sub-
jectivity increases.
Proposition 8c: The relationship between
the rival’s KSAs and jealousy and between
target-rival perceived similarity and jeal-
ousy becomes increasingly positive as re-
ward subjectivity increases.
220 Academy of Management Review
Siloed accountability. Siloed accountability
refers to narrowly shared responsibility for work
output within an organization (Ganzglass et al.,
2014). Organizations with siloed accountability
judge workers based on their results in single,
specific functions and tend to focus on localized
goals (Gittell & Douglass, 2012), with no incentive to
work across a wider sector (McDonald, 2007)—thus
encouraging rivalry among employees (Morrison,
2014). Studies have shown that systems of ac-
countability can affect cooperation (e.g., Gittell,
2000; Gittell, Seidner, & Wimbush, 2010) and have
the potential to harm coworker coordination. In
contrast, organizations with shared accountability
structures encourage collaboration to achieve de-
sired outcomes (Evans & Davis, 2005; Gittell &
Douglass, 2012).
We can consider a subordinate who provides
access to a minority network. In a workplace with
siloed accountability (e.g., the supervisor’s num-
ber of new clients is their responsibility), the ac-
tor’s exclusive access to their subordinate will be
of greater value because it allows the actor to
successfully fulfill their responsibilities (through
expanding their client base). However, when ac-
countability for expanding client bases is shared
among supervisors, having exclusive access to
this subordinate is less valuable. In terms of actor
variables, we can consider an actor who has suf-
fered from past betrayal (Proposition 3). If this
actor is solely accountable for reaching certain
performance goals, the impact of their experience
with being betrayed will become more worrisome,
since their workplace relationships that help in
accomplishing these goals will become even more
vital to guard. In terms of target variables, we can
consider a target who is perceived to hold low af-
fect toward the actor (Proposition 4b). In a firm
where this actor is solely responsible for certain
goals, the lack of affect from the valued target be-
comes even more worrisome, because this target is
needed to fulfill obligations, and one’s need to
fulfill obligations has been emphasized. Last, in
terms of the rival, we can consider a rival who has
many similarities with one’s target (Proposition 6).
In a firm where accountability is siloed, the more
similarities one’s rival has with one’s target, the
more worrisome the potential loss of this relation-
ship becomes because of the pressure of fulfilling
objectives by oneself. Thus, we suggest that siloed
accountability will serve to amplify each of the
relationships listed above among the actor’s, tar-
get’s, and rival’s attributes on jealousy.
January
Proposition 9a: The relationship be-
tween the actor’s unfavorable CSEs
and jealousy, dependence and jeal-
ousy, and past betrayal and jealousy
becomes increasingly positive as siloed
accountability increases.
Proposition 9b: The relationship be-
tween the target’s low loyalty and
jealousy, low affect and jealousy, and
low contribution and jealousy becomes
increasingly positive as siloed account-
ability increases.
Proposition 9c: The relationship between
the rival’s KSAs and jealousy and be-
tween target-rival perceived similarity
and jealousy becomes increasingly pos-
itive as siloed accountability Increases.
Impact on Relationships
We propose that the emergence of jealousy will
have two effects on the jealousy triad: (1) jealousy
will give rise to feelings of malicious envy in the
actor directed toward the rival, and (2) it will cause
a breakdown in coworker coordination, making it
difficult for all three parties to productively interact
with one another. Prevention-focused individuals
want to protect and maintain their standing and
seek safety and security (Higgins, 1997, 1998),
meaning that in the face of jealousy they would
wish to maintain their place in the target’s fa-
vor, either through the denigration of their rival
(malicious envy) or through improving themselves
(benign envy). We suggest that prevention-fo-
cused individuals will be more likely to experi-
ence malicious envy toward their rival, since
studies have found that prevention-oriented
workers are more likely to feel that self-
improvement is difficult and that one’s abilities
are stable (Gorman et al., 2012), making the ac-
tionable content of benign envy (i.e., improving
one’s level to match the rival) unlikely. Addi-
tionally, unlike benign envy, malicious envy has
been associated with a fear of failure (Lange &
Crusius, 2015), similar to that of a prevention
orientation (Brockner & Higgins, 2001).
The prevention-focused nature of the jealousy
experience is likely to lead to coordination break-
down for two reasons. First, Brocker and Higgins
(2001) suggested that the agitation associated with
a prevention-focused failure (such as the loss of
a valued relationship) can lead to unproductive
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
energy and counterproductive behavior, making
working relationships especially difficult to main-
tain. Second, studies have shown that prevention-
focused individuals express greater withdrawal
hostility during conflict with partners (e.g., acting
cold and distant), meaning that they are less likely
to clearly express their discontent (Winterheld &
Simpson, 2011). Furthermore, when such individuals
do decide to finally resolve serious relationship
problems, these issues are often tackled in a con-
suming manner (e.g., Higgins, 1998), even at the cost
of increasing interpersonal conflict (Winterheld &
Simpson, 2011). In either case—whether jealousy
inspires silent hostility or mounting conflict—
coworker coordination will be difficult.
Malicious envy. Malicious envy arises when
enviers try to even out the advantage of the envied
party through denigrating the advantage of that
party (Lange & Crusius, 2015). A prevention focus is
associated with the goal of maintaining the status
quo and avoiding change. In a jealousy situation,
the malicious form of envy functions in the attempt
to bring the rival back to their original position
(i.e., not favored by the target). Studies suggest that
envy-eliciting situations result in malicious envy
when an actor judges the envied party’s superior
advantage to be undeserved and when the actor
experiences less control over their personal out-
comes (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2011).
We suggest that there are two ways the emer-
gence of jealousy will likely result in feelings of
malicious envy toward the rival. First, researchers
propose that the threat of rejection inducing
jealousy is different from other types of rejection,
since one’s interpersonal loss leads to another’s
interpersonal gain (Harris & Darby, 2010). We ar-
gue that the anticipation of the lost favor of the
target (which now may be given to the rival) will be
a cause for malicious envy to arise because the
actor will feel that the rival was undeserving of this
favor—given that it was once given to the actor and
has been “taken” from them (Pines, 1998; Salovey,
1991). Thus, we argue that when the employee be-
lieves that the favor they once received will in-
stead be provided to the undeserving rival, the
employee will experience malicious envy.
Second, studies have often found that jealousy
is associated with feeling a lack of control (e.g.,
Giordano et al., 2015; Vecchio, 2000). We suggest that
jealous individuals will feel that they have little
control over the relationship between the rival and
the target, thus making it difficult for an actor to im-
prove their situation. When people perceive little
221
opportunity to act constructively, they are more likely
to feel a hostile form of envy (Van de Ven et al., 2012),
resulting in feelings of malicious envy.
Proposition 10: As jealousy emerges, the
emotion held by the actor toward the
rival will be malicious envy.
Breakdown of coworker coordination. Organi-
zations depend on coordinated work between group
members to successfully function and meet their
objectives (e.g., Lamé, Duong, Jankovic, Stal-Le
Cardinal, & Jouini, 2016). Coordination is critical for
achieving performance outcomes within organiza-
tions that operate using highly interdependent work
processes, which researchers have found to be in-
creasingly common (e.g., Gittell, 2006). We propose
that jealousy can have a negative effect on coworker
coordination and the ability to successfully work
with other organizational members for three rea-
sons. First, for the actor who experiences jealousy,
this experience can result in thoughts of uncertainty
regarding a partner’s commitment toward the re-
lationship itself (Theiss & Solomon, 2006). When one
is unsure of one’s valued partner, one is less likely to
want to work with this person and invest further time
and effort in the relationship and tends to distance
oneself (Derrick, Leonard, & Homish, 2012; Gomillion,
Gabriel, & Murray, 2014). Second, the target is likely
to suffer from jealousy-created emotions such as
anger and anxiety and to experience relational
uncertainty, questioning whether they want to
maintain their relationship with a jealous individ-
ual (Bevan, 2006). We suggest that these negative
experiences will make it difficult for the target to feel
engaged or willing to work in their jealous coworker.
Third, because an actor is likely to suffer from mali-
cious envy toward their suspected rival, feelings of
hostility and aggression toward that rival will arise
(Salovey & Rodin, 1984), often decreasing information
sharing and increasing engagement in unethical
behaviors against the rival (Gino & Pierce, 2009).
Being on the receiving end of such negative actions,
rivals are also likely to find it difficult to work with
this envious coworker. Given the negative effects
of jealousy on all three parties, we propose that
coworker coordination will become increasingly
difficult to manage and may eventually lead to
coordination breakdown.
Proposition 11: As jealousy emerges,
coworker coordination will become in-
creasingly difficult and likely to break
down.
222 Academy of Management Review
DISCUSSION
Jealousy is a complex emotion to address for an
individual, since it calls into question not only a
critical relationship and its associated benefits
and opportunities but also one’s self-worth (Harris
& Darby, 2010). Those faced with a boss who sud-
denly favors another subordinate may ruminate
about their own worth (“Am I not a valuable em-
ployee?”), or an assistant who prefers another su-
pervisor (“Am I a bad manager?”) can call into
question one’s self-esteem and workplace identity.
As noted, we believe that several of the factors in
our model can, and oftentimes do, interact to make
jealousy more likely. For example, we would ex-
pect that increased target scarcity would cause
higher levels of felt dependency, increasing the
likelihood of jealousy emergence. Although it is
beyond the scope of this study to examine these
interactive effects, and is a limitation of our model,
this provides a promising venue for study.
Implications for Research
We believe that at least part of the omission of
studying jealousy within the management litera-
ture has been due to the conflation of the two
separate constructs of envy and jealousy (Smith &
Kim, 2007). Our approach departs from current
research, such as Tai et al.’s (2012) and Van de Ven
et al.’s (2011), that examines envy as an isolated
mechanism driving threat-oriented behavior. In-
stead, in this article we examine how one form of
envy interacts with other emotions to form a new
experience, suggesting that malicious envy may
arise from the dynamic of jealousy.
Although researchers have studied the differ-
ences in appraisal patterns of benign and mali-
cious envy and the factors influencing how envy
takes either form (e.g., Van de Ven at al., 2012),
there is little research on how forms of envy
evolve. This article suggests that one way this
process may occur is through the mechanism of
jealousy. When individuals conduct an upward
social comparison and find themselves failing,
they experience envy. If the envied party is found
to be deserving, benign envy results. For example,
an actor may experience benign envy toward a
colleague who has superior data analysis skills
and is perceived to have studied hard to attain
these skills. If this envied party begins to form a
bond with the actor’s target, the actor may then
judge the envied party (now a rival who causes
January
jealousy) to be undeserving of their relationship
with the target, causing malicious envy to arise.
Although the actor may have originally experi-
enced benign envy, we would suggest that through
the mechanism of jealousy—and because jealousy
is typically a stronger emotion than envy (Haslam
& Bornstein, 1996)—the malicious envy felt from the
rival’s relationship would transform the actor’s
feelings regarding the rival’s superior skills,
causing benign envy to turn malicious.
One of the contributions of this article lies in
integrating insights from regulatory focus theory
with the social psychology literature to develop a
theory of workplace jealousy. Drawing on find-
ings from the regulatory focus literature allows us
to reach a more nuanced understanding of jeal-
ousy and envy and how the two constructs interact
to predict unique behavioral outcomes. For ex-
ample, our model suggests that those with a
chronic promotion focus will be more inclined to
experience benign envy (more than malicious
envy) in the face of a superior other, but even these
individuals may suffer from malicious envy in
a jealousy situation that elicits a prevention
mindset. Because a promotion focus predicts ap-
proach behaviors and a prevention focus predicts
avoidance behaviors, this may help explain why
individuals experiencing jealousy may engage in
both tactics—using approach strategies to retain
their valued target and avoidance strategies to
insulate themselves from their rival.
We have examined jealousy primarily from
the perspective of the focal actor (i.e., the person
who feels jealous). One way to expand our un-
derstanding of this complex social emotion is to
explore the rival’s experience. The rival may be
subject to a range of emotions: confusion, guilt,
resentment, and even anger. One who replaces
another in a valued relationship may worry
about eliciting envy from others (Exline & Lobel,
1999, 2001), especially since individuals assume
they threaten others more than others threaten
them (Menon & Thompson, 2007). Negative af-
fective reactions in which the rival lashes out
against the actor, causing the actor to feel that
their jealousy is justified, may ultimately result
in a negative spiral damaging to their relation-
ship and the workplace. This may also occur in
the target-actor relationship, where the target
feels unfairly treated and, thus, reacts negatively
to the actor’s feelings of jealousy. Alternatively, if
the rival engages in good faith actions toward the
actor, this may lessen the actor’s perceptions of
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
threat and diminish the likelihood of jealousy
emergence—even strengthening the relationship
between both parties.
Whether jealousy is a singular, distinct emotion
is debated (Harris & Darby, 2010). A promising
research avenue is to delineate how behaviors
associated with jealousy may differ if jealousy is
viewed as a nondistinct emotion and as one made
up of various parts (such as sadness and anger).
Some studies have suggested that investigating
jealousy as a multidimensional construct, con-
taining cognitive, emotional, and behavioral di-
mensions, may provide additional insight into
jealousy’s relation with other organizational
constructs (e.g., Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989; Russell &
Harton, 2005). In this case, cognitive and emo-
tional jealousy address the experience of jealousy
(Afifi & Reichert, 1996), while behavioral jealousy
deals with its expression. These distinctions were
made in the romantic relationship literature, but
investigation of these possible jealousy forms in
the workplace is warranted.
Implications for Practice
We have several suggestions for all three parties
in the jealousy triad. First, for the target of jealousy,
we suggest that displays of loyalty, care, and in-
vestment in relationships have strong effects on
the emergence of jealousy. For example, supervi-
sors who show themselves to be committed to their
subordinates in terms of their career goals are less
likely incite jealousy. Our model suggests that in-
dividuals with low CSEs are well advised to be
more vigilant in how their own perceptions of the
rival and the relationship between rival and target
affect their leanings toward jealousy. Additionally,
managers must be aware that a culture encour-
aging high levels of siloed accountability can
create internal rivalry, which is likely to exacer-
bate the jealousy experience. Jealousy taken to the
extreme can lead to possessiveness (Swami et al.,
2012) or sabotage. Jealous employees may resort to
withholding resources from their lower-ranking
targets (to control them) or from colleagues viewed
as rivals (e.g., Anaza & Nowlin, 2017)—a topic
worthy of further investigation.
Managers must also be aware of distinguishing
between an employee suffering from benign
envy and one experiencing jealousy and/or mali-
cious envy, because when only benign envy is
addressed, the issues of jealousy and malicious
envy are unlikely to be successfully resolved. We
223
can take the example of an employee who enjoys
the favor of their manager and expects to receive
funding to attend a conference, until a rival de-
velops a close relationship with this manager and
receives the funding instead of the employee. If the
manager expects to manage jealousy through of-
fering the employee the opportunity to also attend
the conference, this may reduce inequity by raising
the employee to the rival’s level (addressing be-
nign envy), but it is unlikely to address the jealous
party’s need to degrade the rival that accompanies
malicious envy (which would likely require taking
away the rival’s conference funding), nor will it
address the need to protect their relationship (which
would require relationship-affirming moves from
the manager). On the positive side, the threat of a
rival may be beneficial, since the experience can
provide an opportunity to reaffirm the value of both
members in the relationship and/or assess what
changes need to be made for the well-being of the
relationship.
In terms of organization-level remedies to ad-
dress jealousy, we suggest three lines of proac-
tive response. First, we suggest that a shared
accountability and shared rewards system be
implemented to encourage collaboration. Such
systems support taking a holistic view of one’s
work (Springer, Corbett, & Davis, 2006) and foster
high-quality relationships among employees,
particularly when relational work is explicitly
measured and factored into the reward system
(Gittell & Douglass, 2012). This should reduce the
negative influences of an overly competitive work
environment, which can lead to possessiveness
and jealousy. Second, we suggest that proactive
conflict resolution techniques be taught and prac-
ticed within the organization. The use of laissez-
faire approaches to resolve conflict between parties
with resource divisions is unlikely to resolve dys-
functional relationship issues (Gittell, 2009), such
as jealousy. Third, we suggest that alternative
organizational designs be considered. For exam-
ple, relational bureaucracy theory (Gittell &
Douglass, 2012) argues for a hybrid organiza-
tional form, which directly structures critical re-
ciprocal relationships into work roles. In such
types of organizations, value is placed on shared
knowledge, shared goals, and mutual respect.
Since knowledge is a critical resource in organi-
zations (Lecuona & Reitzig, 2014), the sharing of
knowledge should reduce jealousy based on
having access to targets with exclusive informa-
tion; shared goals would reduce the drive for
224 Academy of Management Review
exclusivity in relationships that often leads to
jealousy (Ritchie & van Anders, 2015); and mu-
tual respect would increase relationship qual-
ity between employees (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2016),
thus effectively reducing the likelihood of jeal-
ousy emergence. Relational bureaucracy advises
selecting employees with a preference for team-
work, and such a selection may include a screen
for dispositional jealousy, given its potential im-
pact on coordination.
CONCLUSION
Jealousy is a fundamental social emotion be-
lieved to be present in nearly all relationships
(e.g., Bevan, 2006). Regardless of the type of re-
lationship in which it occurs, with its complicated
social and psychological underpinnings, jeal-
ousy has the potential to produce dysfunctional
and, at times, functional behavioral outcomes.
At its best, the emotion can inspire individuals
to focus on relationship maintenance (Harris &
Darby, 2010); at its worst, it can result in aggres-
sion (DeSteno et al., 2006), sabotage (Dogan
& Vecchio, 2001), and possessiveness of other
workplace members (Harris & Darby, 2010). A
more precise understanding of when jealousy will
occur, the contextual variables involved, and
what factors determine if the outcomes of the
emotion will be detrimental or beneficial to the
triadic parties is essential. Thus, with this article
we hope to inspire future work in understanding,
both conceptually and empirically, the role of
jealousy in the workplace.
REFERENCES
Afifi, W., & Reichert, T. 1996. Understanding the role of un-
certainty in jealousy experience and expression. Com-
munication Reports, 9: 93–103.
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. 2000. Conflict management,
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 53: 625–642.
Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. 2017. What’s mine is mine: A study
of salesperson knowledge withholding & hoarding be-
havior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64: 14–24.
Arnocky, S., Ribout, A., Mirza, R., & Knack, J. 2014. Perceived
mate availability influences intrasexual competition,
jealousy and mate-guarding behavior. Journal of Evolu-
tionary Psychology, 12: 45–64.
Arnocky, S., Sunderani, S., Miller, J., & Vaillancourt, T. 2012.
Jealousy mediates the relationship between attractive-
ness comparison and females’ indirect aggression. Per-
sonal Relationships, 19: 290–303.
January
Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Sprecher, S. 1998. Dependency
and insecurity in romantic relationships: Development
and validation of two companion scales. Personal Re-
lationships, 5: 31–58.
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. 2006. How regulatory fit affects value
in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing
Research, 43: 1–10.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. 2011. When prevention
promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus,
and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100: 794–809.
Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. 2006. Ties, leaders, and time in
teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects
on team viability and performance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 49: 49–68.
Ballinger, G. A., Schoorman, F. D., & Lehman, D. W. 2009. Will
you trust your new boss? The role of affective reactions to
leadership succession. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 219–232.
Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., &
Walker, H. J. 2008. The influence of personality differences
between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of
LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization
Management, 33: 216–240.
Bers, S., & Rodin, J. 1984. Social-comparison jealousy: A de-
velopmental and motivational study. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 47: 766–779.
Bevan, J. L. 2006. Testing and refining a consequence model of
jealousy across relational contexts and jealousy expres-
sion messages. Communication Reports, 19: 31–44.
Bevan, J. L. 2008. Experiencing and communicating romantic
jealousy: Questioning the investment model. Southern
Communication Journal, 73: 42–67.
Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. 2009. Relative deprivation
among employees in lower-quality leader-member ex-
change relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 20: 276–
286.
Breaugh, J., & Farabee, A. 2012. Telecommuting and flexible
work hours: Alternative work arrangements that can im-
prove the quality of work life. In N. Reilly, M. Sirgy, & C.
Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life: 251–274. Dor-
drecht: Springer.
Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. 2001. 360° feedback: Accuracy, re-
actions, and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86: 930–942.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Im-
plications for the study of emotions at work. Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 35–66.
Broemer, P., & Diehl, M. 2004. Romantic jealousy as a social
comparison outcome: When similarity stings. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 393–400.
Buss, D. M. 2014. Comment: Evolutionary criteria for consid-
ering an emotion “basic”: Jealousy as an illustration.
Emotion Review, 6: 313–315.
Buunk, A., aan’t Goor, J., & Solano, A. 2010. Intrasexual com-
petition at work: Sex differences in the jealousy-evoking
effect of rival characteristics in work settings. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 27: 671–684.
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
Buunk, A., & Dijkstra, P. 2006. The threat of temptation: Extra-
dyadic relationships and jealousy. In D. Perlman & A.
Vangelisti (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal re-
lationships: 533–556. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. 2001. Evidence from a homosexual
sample for a sex‐specific rival‐oriented mechanism:
Jealousy as a function of a rival’s physical attractiveness
and dominance. Personal Relationships, 8: 391–406.
Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic
Press.
Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan,
J. A. 2012. Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation
of the literature. Journal of Management, 38: 81–128.
Cohen‐Charash, Y. 2009. Episodic envy. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 39: 2128–2173.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. 2007. Does perceived un-
fairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counter-
productive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92: 666–680.
Colarelli, S. M. 2003. No best way: An evolutionary per-
spective on human resource management. New York:
Greenwood.
Collins, B. J., Burrus, C. J., & Meyer, R. D. 2014. Gender differ-
ences in the impact of leadership styles on subordinate
embeddedness and job satisfaction. Leadership Quar-
terly, 25: 660–671.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. 2005. Social exchange theory:
An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31:
874–900.
Cross, R., & Sproull, L. 2004. More than an answer: Information
relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization
Science, 15: 446–462.
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. 1997. Regulatory focus and strate-
gic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-
making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 69: 117–132.
Crusius, J., & Lange, J. 2014. What catches the envious eye?
Attentional biases within malicious and benign envy.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55: 1–11.
Davis, K., Swan, S., & Gambone, L. 2012. Why doesn’t he just
leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: A critical review of
theories and evidence. Sex Roles, 66: 328–339.
Demirtas-Madran, H. 2011. Understanding coping with roman-
tic jealousy: Major theoretical approaches. In R. Trnka, K.
Balcar, & M. Kuska (Eds.), Re-constructing emotional
spaces: From experience to regulation: 153–167. Prague:
Prague College of Psychosocial Studies Press.
Derrick, J. L., Leonard, K. E., & Homish, G. G. 2012. Dependence
regulation in newlywed couples: A prospective exami-
nation. Personal Relationships, 19: 644–662.
DeSteno, D. 2004. New perspectives on jealousy: An integrative
view of the most social of social emotions. Paper pre-
sented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Society, Chicago.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. 2006. Jealousy and the
threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed mon-
ster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 626–641.
225
DeSteno, D. A., & Salovey, P. 1996. Evolutionary origins of sex
differences in jealousy? Questioning the “fitness” of the
model. Psychological Science, 7: 367–372.
Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. 1986. Leader-member exchange
model of leadership: A critique and further development.
Academy of Management Review, 11: 618–634.
Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, A. 2001. Sex differences in the jealousy-
evoking effect of a rival’s body build. Evolution and Hu-
man Behavior, 22: 335–341.
Dogan, K., & Vecchio, R. P. 2001. Managing envy and jealousy
in the workplace. Compensation & Benefits Review, 33:
57–64.
Duffy, M., & Shaw, J. 2000. The Salieri syndrome consequences
of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 31: 3–23.
Dulebohn, J., Bommer, W., Liden, R., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. 2012.
A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of
leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye
toward the future. Journal of Management, 38: 1715–1758.
Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. 2004. Too good to be trusted?
Relative performance envy and trust. Academy of Man-
agement Proceedings, 1: B1–B6.
Emerson, R. M. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review
of Sociology, 2: 335–362.
Espejo, R. 2007. Frequently asked questions about jealousy.
New York: Rosen Publishing.
Evans, W. R., & Davis, W. D. 2005. High-performance work
systems and organizational performance: The mediating
role of internal social structure. Journal of Management,
31: 758–775.
Exline, J., & Lobel, M. 1999. The perils of outperformance:
Sensitivity about being the target of a threatening up-
ward comparison. Psychological Bulletin, 125: 307–337.
Exline, J., & Lobel, M. 2001. Private gain, social strain: Do re-
lationship factors shape responses to outperformance?
European Journal of Social Psychology, 31: 593–607.
Fairhurst, G. 2001. Dualisms in leadership research. In L. L.
Putnam & F. M. Jablin (Eds.), The new handbook of organi-
zational communication: 379–439. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang,
C. H. D., & Tan, J. A. 2013. When is success not satisfying?
Integrating regulatory focus and approach/avoidance
motivation theories to explain the relation between core
self-evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98: 342–353.
Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy,
S. D., & Heller, D. 2011. Approach or avoidance (or both?):
Integrating core self‐evaluations within an approach/
avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64: 137–161.
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes.
Human Relations, 1: 117–140.
Flap, H., & Völker, B. 2001. Goal specific social capital and job
satisfaction: Effects of different types of networks on in-
strumental and social aspects of work. Social Networks,
23: 297–320.
Foster, G. 1972. The anatomy of envy. Current Anthropology,
13: 165–202.
226 Academy of Management Review
Frewen, P., & Lundberg, E. 2012. Visual-verbal self/other-
referential processing task: Direct vs. indirect assess-
ment, valence, and experimental correlates. Personality
and Individual Differences, 52: 509–514.
Fussell, N., & Stollery, B. 2012. Between-sex differences in ro-
mantic jealousy: Substance or spin? A qualitative anal-
ysis. Evolutionary Psychology, 10: 136–172.
Ganzglass, E., Foster, M., & Newcomer, A. 2014. Reforming the
supply side of sector strategies: Innovations in commu-
nity colleges. In M. Conway & R. Giloth (Eds.), Connecting
people to work: Workforce intermediaries: 301–324. New
York: Aspen Institute.
Gino, F., & Pierce, L. 2009. Dishonesty in the name of equity.
Psychological Science, 20: 1153–1160.
Giordano, P. C., Copp, J. E., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D.
2015. Anger, control, and intimate partner violence in
young adulthood. Journal of Family Violence, 31: 1–13.
Gittell, J. H. 2000. Organizing work to support relational co-
ordination. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 11: 517–539.
Gittell, J. H. 2006. Relational coordination: Coordinating work
through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge
and mutual respect. In O. Kyriakidou & M. Özbilgin (Eds.),
Relational perspectives in organizational studies: A re-
search companion: 74–94. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Gittell, J. H. 2009. High performance healthcare: Using the
power of relationships to achieve quality, efficiency and
resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. 2012. Relational bureaucracy:
Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy
of Management Review, 37: 709–733.
Gittell, J. H., Seidner, R., & Wimbush, J. 2010. A relational
model of how high-performance work systems work. Or-
ganization Science, 21: 490–506.
Gomillion, S., Gabriel, S., & Murray, S. 2014. A friend of yours
is no friend of mine: Jealousy toward a romantic partner’s
friends. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 5:
636–643.
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S.,
McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. 2012. A meta-
analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network:
Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80: 160–172.
Guerrero, L., & Andersen, P. 1998a. The dark side of jealousy
and envy: Desire, delusion, desperation, and destructive
communication. In B. Spitzberg & W. Cupach (Eds.), The
dark side of close relationships: 33–70. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guerrero, L., & Andersen, P. 1998b. Jealousy experience and
expression in romantic relationships. In P. Andersen & L.
Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emo-
tion: 155–188. San Diego: Academic Press.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg,
B. H., & Eloy, S. V. 1995. Coping with the green-eyed
monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative
responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Com-
munication, 59: 270–304.
January
Harris, C. R. 2003a. Factors associated with jealousy over real
and imagined infidelity: An examination of the social‐
cognitive and evolutionary psychology perspectives. Psy-
chology of Women Quarterly, 27: 319–329.
Harris, C. R. 2003b. A review of sex differences in sexual
jealousy, including self-report data, psychological re-
sponses, interpersonal violence and morbid jealousy.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 102–128.
Harris, C. R., & Darby, R. S. 2010. Jealousy in adulthood. In S.
Hart & M. Legerstee (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory,
research and multidisciplinary approaches: 547–571. Chi-
chester, UK: Blackwell.
Hashimoto, H., & Yamagishi, T. 2013. Two faces of interdependence:
Harmony seeking and rejection avoidance. Asian Journal of
Social Psychology, 16: 142–151.
Haslam, N., & Bornstein, B. H. 1996. Envy and jealousy as
discrete emotions: A taxometric analysis. Motivation and
Emotion, 20: 255–272.
Heider, F. 1958. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley.
Hellweg, S. A. 1978. An examination of the ideal immediate
supervisor and subordinate. Journal of Business Com-
munication, 16: 49–56.
Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating
self and affect. Psychological Review, 94: 319–340.
Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American
Psychologist, 52: 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T. 1998. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory fo-
cus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experi-
mental Social Psychology, 30: 1–46.
Higgins, E. T. 2000. Making a good decision: Value from fit.
American Psychologist, 55: 1217–1231.
Higgins, E. T., & Cornwell, J. F. 2016. Securing foundations and
advancing frontiers: Prevention and promotion effects on
judgment & decision making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 136: 56–67.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. 1994. Ideal
versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance
distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 66: 276–286.
Higgins, E. T., & Spiegel, S. 2004. Promotion and prevention
strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition per-
spective. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications:
171–187. New York: Guilford Press.
Huang, L., & Knight, A. P. 2017. Resources and relationships in
entrepreneurship: An exchange theory of the develop-
ment and effects of the entrepreneur-investor relation-
ship. Academy of Management Review, 42: 80–102.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. 2000. Distinguishing
gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regu-
latory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36: 252–274.
Jafari, M., Bourouni, A., & Amiri, R. H. 2009. A new framework
for selection of the best performance appraisal method.
European Journal of Social Sciences, 7: 92–100.
2020 Andiappan and Dufour
Jaiswal, D., & Dhar, R. L. 2016. Impact of perceived organiza-
tional support, psychological empowerment and leader
member exchange on commitment and its subsequent
impact on service quality. International Journal of Pro-
ductivity and Performance Management, 65: 58–79.
Johnson, R., King, D., Lin, S., Scott, B., Walker, E., & Wang, M.
2017. Regulatory focus trickle-down: How leader regula-
tory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
140: 29–45.
Johnson, R., Lin, S., Kark, R., Van Dijk, D., King, D., & Esformes, E.
2017. Consequences of regulatory fit for leader–follower
relationship quality and commitment. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 90: 379–406.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. 2008. Getting to the
core of core self‐evaluation: A review and recommenda-
tions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 391–413.
Judge, T., Locke, E., & Durham, C. 1997. The dispositional
causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 151–188.
Judge, T., Van Vianen, A., & De Pater, I. 2004. Emotional sta-
bility, core self-evaluations, and job outcomes: A review
of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Hu-
man Performance, 17: 325–346.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to
follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership
processes. Academy of Management Review, 32: 500–528.
Keller, P. A. 2006. Regulatory focus and efficacy of health
messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33: 109–114.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. 2003. Power, ap-
proach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110: 265–284.
Kim, S., Jung, D., & Lee, J. 2013. Service employees’ deviant be-
haviors and leader-member exchange in contexts of dis-
positional envy and jealousy. Service Business, 7: 583–602.
Kleinbaum, A. M., Stuart, T. E., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Dis-
cretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a
formal organization. Organization Science, 24: 1316–1336.
Knobloch, L. 2005. Relational uncertainty and relational in-
formation processing: Questions without answers? Com-
munication Research, 32: 349–388.
Knobloch, L., Solomon, D., & Cruz, M. 2001. The role of rela-
tionship development and attachment in the experience
of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 8: 205–224.
Komissarouk, S., & Nadler, A. 2014. “I” seek autonomy, “we”
rely on each other: Self-construal and regulatory focus as
determinants of autonomy- and dependency-oriented
help-seeking behavior. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 40: 726–738.
Lamé, G., Duong, T. A., Jankovic, M., Stal-Le Cardinal, J., &
Jouini, O. 2016. Analysis of implementation of care co-
ordination in a multi-level care provider organization: A
need for systems approaches. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Complex Systems Design &
Management: 107–118. Paris: Springer.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. 2012. Regulatory focus
and work-related outcomes: A review and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 138: 998–1034.
227
Lange, J., & Crusius, J. 2015. Dispositional envy revisited:
Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and
malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 41: 284–294.
Leary, M. R., Twenge, J. M., & Quinlivan, E. 2006. Interpersonal
rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10: 111–132.
Lecuona, J. R., & Reitzig, M. 2014. Knowledge worth having in
“excess”: The value of tacit and firm‐specific human
resource slack. Strategic Management Journal, 35:
954–973.
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L., & Gardner, W. L. 2000. The pleasures
and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of in-
terdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 78: 1122–1134.
Li, L. M. W., & Masuda, T. 2016. The role of regulatory focus in
how much we care about enemies: Cross-cultural com-
parison between European Canadians and Hong Kong
Chinese. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47: 131–148.
Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. 1999.
Promotion and prevention choices between stability and
change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77:
1135–1145.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. 1998. Multidimensionality of
leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment
through scale development. Journal of Management, 24:
43–72.
MacDonald, G., & Leary, M. 2012. Individual differences in
self-esteem. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of
self and identity: 354–377. New York: Guilford Press.
Martin, R., Guillaume, Y., Thomas, G., Lee, A., & Epitropaki,
O. 2016. Leader-member exchange (LMX) and perfor-
mance: A meta‐analytic review. Personnel Psychology,
69: 67–121.
McDonald, K. 2007. The critical role of leadership in the New
Zealand state sector. Policy Quarterly, 2: 3–10.
McMullen, J. S., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. 2009. Managerial
(in)attention to competitive threats. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 46: 157–181.
Melwani, S., & Barsade, S. G. 2011. Held in contempt: The
psychological, interpersonal, and performance conse-
quences of contempt in a work context. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 101: 503–520.
Menon, T., & Thompson, L. 2007. Don’t hate me because I’m
beautiful: Self-enhancing biases in threat appraisal. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
104: 45–60.
Milkman, K., Huang, L., & Schweitzer, M. 2010. Teetering be-
tween cooperation and competition: How subtle cues un-
expectedly derail coopetitive workplace relationships.
Working paper, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mize, K., Pineda, M., Blau, A., Marsh, K., & Jones, N. 2014. Infant
physiological and behavioral responses to a jealousy
provoking condition. Infancy, 19: 338–348.
Morrison, A. 2014. Picking up the pace in public services.
Policy Quarterly, 10: 43–48.
228 Academy of Management Review
Morrison, E. W. 2002. Newcomers’ relationships: The role of
social network ties during socialization. Academy of
Management Journal, 45: 1149–1160.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. 2009. More in-
formation than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out
the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 12: 441–444.
Murphy, A. M., & Russell, G. 2016. Rejection sensitivity, jeal-
ousy, and the relationship to interpersonal aggression.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 91: 626–641.
Murphy, S. M., Vallacher, R. R., Shackelford, T. K., Bjorklund,
D. F., & Yunger, J. L. 2006. Relationship experience as a
predictor of romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40: 761–769.
Neu, J. 1980. Jealous thoughts. In A. Rorty (Ed.), Explaining
emotions: 425–463. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., &
Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the
influence of initiating structure and servant leadership
on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:
1220–1233.
Nicholson, N. 1998. How hardwired is human behavior? Har-
vard Business Review, 76(4): 134–147.
Parrott, W. 1991. The emotional experiences of envy and
jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy
and envy: 3–30. New York: Guilford Press.
Parrott, W. G. 2001. Emotions in social psychology: Essential
readings. Oxford: Psychology Press.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. 1993. Distinguishing the experi-
ences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64: 906–920.
Pfeiffer, S., & Wong, P. 1989. Multidimensional jealousy. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6: 181–196.
Pines, A. M. 1998. Romantic jealousy: Causes, symptoms, cures.
New York: Routledge.
Prediger, S., Vollan, B., & Herrmann, B. 2014. Resource scarcity
and antisocial behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 119:
1–9.
Reina, D. S., & Reina, M. L. 2006. Trust & betrayal in the
workplace: Building effective relationships in your orga-
nization. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Ritchie, L. L., & van Anders, S. M. 2015. There’s jealousy . . . and
then there’s jealousy: Differential effects of jealousy on
testosterone. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology,
1: 231–246.
Rodriguez, L. M., DiBello, A. M., & Neighbors, C. 2015. Positive
and negative jealousy in the association between prob-
lem drinking and IPV perpetration. Journal of Family Vi-
olence, 30: 987–997.
Rotenberg, K., Shewchuk, V., & Kimberley, T. 2001. Loneliness,
sex, romantic jealousy, and powerlessness. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 18: 55–79.
Russell, E., & Harton, H. 2005. The “other factors”: Using individual
and relationship characteristics to predict sexual and
January
emotional infidelity. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 24: 242–257.
Rydell, R., & Bringle, R. 2007. Differentiating reactive and
suspicious jealousy. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 35: 1099–1114.
Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Bringle, R. G. 2004. Jealousy and
commitment: Perceived threat and the effect of relationship
alternatives. Personal Relationships, 11: 451–468.
Sagarin, B., Becker, D., Guadagno, R., Nicastle, L., & Millevoi,
A. 2003. Sex differences (and similarities) in jealousy: The
moderating influence of infidelity experience and sexual
orientation of the infidelity. Evolution and Human Be-
havior, 24: 17–23.
Salovey, P. 1991. The psychology of jealousy and envy. New
York: Guilford Press.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. 1984. Some antecedents and conse-
quences of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 47: 780–792.
Schmalbach, B., Spina, R., Steffens-Guerra, I., Franke, G. H.,
Kliem, S., Michaelides, M. P., & Zenger, M. 2017. Psycho-
metric properties of the German version of the Health Reg-
ulatory Focus Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 8: 2005–2015.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. 2008. Distinguishing levels of
approach and avoidance: An analysis using regulatory
focus theory. In A. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and
avoidance motivation: 489–504. New York: Psychology
Press.
Schyns, B. 2004. The influence of occupational self-efficacy on
the relationship of leadership behavior and preparedness
for occupational change. Journal of Career Development,
30: 247–261.
Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. 1998. Performance in-
centives and means: How regulatory focus influences
goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 74: 285–293.
Sharpsteen, D. 1991. The organization of jealousy knowledge:
Romantic jealousy as a blended emotion. In P. Salovey
(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy: 31–51. New
York: Guilford Press.
Shepherd, D. A., Williams, T. A., & Patzelt, H. 2015. Thinking
about entrepreneurial decision making: Review and re-
search agenda. Journal of Management, 41: 11–46.
Simo, P., Sallan, J. M., Fernandez, V., & Enache, M. 2016.
Change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior:
Analysis of antecedents centered on regulatory theory
focus at the workplace. International Journal of Organi-
zational Analysis, 24: 261–273.
Smith, R., & Kim, S. 2007. Comprehending envy. Psychological
Bulletin, 133: 46–64.
Southard, A., & Abel, M. 2010. Sex differences in romantic jealousy:
Evaluating past and present relationship experience. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychological Research, 6: 41–49.
Springer, P. J., Corbett, C., & Davis, N. 2006. Enhancing
evidence-based practice through collaboration. Journal
of Nursing Administration, 36: 534–537.
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. 2010. Focusing on
followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible
2020 Andiappan and Dufour 229

selves in visionary leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21:
457–468.
Sterling, C., van de Ven, N., & Smith, R. H. 2016. The two faces
of envy: Studying benign and malicious envy in the
workplace. In R. H. Smith, U. Merlone, & M. K. Duffy (Eds.),
Envy at work and in organizations: Research, theory, and
applications: 57–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swami, V., Inamdar, S., Stieger, S., Nader, I., Pietschnig, J.,
Tran, U., & Voracek, M. 2012. A dark side of positive illu-
sions? Associations between the love-is-blind bias and
the experience of jealousy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 53: 796–800.
Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. 2012. Envy as pain:
Rethinking the natures of envy and its implications for
employees and organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 37: 107–129.
Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. 2006. Coupling longitudinal data
and multilevel modeling to examine the antecedents and
consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic re-
lationships: A test of the relational turbulence model.
Human Communication Research, 32: 469–503.
Tipton, R. M., Benedictson, C. S., Mahoney, J., & Hartnett, J. J.
1978. Development of a scale for assessment of jealousy.
Psychological Reports, 42: 1217–1218.
Van der Vurst, G., & Lariviere, B. 2016. Taking a regulatory fit
perspective for understanding employees in their work
context. Working paper, Center for Service Intelligence,
Ghent University, Ghent.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. 2009. Leveling up
and down: The experiences of benign and malicious
envy. Emotion, 9: 419–429.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. 2011. Why envy
outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 37: 784–795.
Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. 2012. Appraisal
patterns of envy and related emotions. Motivation and
Emotion, 36: 195–204.
Vecchio, R. 2000. Negative emotion in the workplace: Em-
ployee jealousy and envy. International Journal of Stress
Management, 7: 161–179.
Volling, B., Kennedy, D., & Jackey, L. 2010. The development
of sibling jealousy. In S. Hart & M. Legerstee (Eds.),
Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisci-
plinary approaches: 387–417. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Volling, B. L., McElwain, N. L., & Miller, A. L. 2002. Emotion
regulation in context: The jealousy complex between
young siblings and its relations with child and family
characteristics. Child Development, 73: 581–600.
Wallace, C., & Chen, G. 2006. A multilevel integration of per-
sonality, climate, self‐regulation, and performance. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 59: 529–557.
Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., & Frazier, M. L. 2009. An exami-
nation of the factorial, construct, and predictive validity
and utility of the Regulatory Focus at Work Scale. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 30: 805–831.
Wang, G., & Zou, H. 2014. Consumption externality and in-
determinacy under increasing returns to scale and en-
dogenous capital depreciation. Working Paper No. 593,
China Economics and Management Academy, Central
University of Finance and Economics, Beijing.
Wang, Y. D., & Sung, W. C. 2016. Predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior: Ethical leadership and workplace
jealousy. Journal of Business Ethics, 135: 117–128.
Watkins, D., Newcomer, J. M., Earnhardt, M. P., Marion, J. W.,
Opengart, R. A., & Glassman, A. M. 2016. A cross-sectional
investigation of the relationships education, certification,
and experience have with knowledge, skills, and abilities
among aviation professionals. International Journal of
Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 3: 1–31.
White, G. L. 1981. Some correlates of romantic jealousy. Jour-
nal of Personality, 49: 129–145.
Wilson, K., Mattingly, B. A., Clark, E. M., Weidler, D. J., &
Bequette, A. W. 2011. The gray area: Exploring attitudes
toward infidelity and the development of the Perceptions
of Dating Infidelity Scale. Journal of Social Psychology,
151: 63–86.
Winterheld, H. A., & Simpson, J. A. 2011. Seeking security or
growth: A regulatory focus perspective on motivations in
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101: 935.
Wurmser, L. & Jarass, H. (Eds.). 2011. Jealousy and envy: New
views about two powerful feelings. New York: Analytic Press.
Zammuner, V. 2011. People’s active emotion vocabulary: Free
listing of emotion labels and their association to salient
psychological variables. In A. Esposito, A. Vinciarelli, K.
Vicsi, C. Pelachaud, & A. Nijholt (Eds.), Analysis of verbal
and nonverbal communication and enactment: The pro-
cessing issues: 449–460. Berlin: Springer.
Zou, X., Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. 2014. In pursuit of
progress: Promotion motivation and risk preference in the
domain of gains. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 106: 183–201.

Meena Andiappan (m.andiappan@montpellier-bs.com) is an assistant professor of or-

ganizational behavior at Montpellier Business School. She received her Ph.D. from Boston
College. Her current research focuses on individual-level and organizational-level re-
sponses to wrongdoing and the role of emotion in the workplace.
Lucas Dufour (l.dufour@montpellier-bs.com) is an assistant professor of organizational
behavior at Montpellier Business School. He received his Ph.D. from IAE Aix-en-
Provence–ESSEC. His current research focuses on newcomer socialization as well as
innovation and creativity processes.
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.