J Organ Behavior - 2022 - Sun - Workplace Gossip An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents Functions and Consequences

Received: 21 January 2020 Revised: 2 May 2022 Accepted: 15 June 2022
DOI: 10.1002/job.2653
REVIEW ARTICLE
Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents,

functions, and consequences
Tianjun Sun1 | Pauline Schilpzand2 | Yihao Liu3,4
1
Department of Psychological Sciences,
Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, Summary
USA The workplace gossip construct is currently divergently interpreted by organizational
2
College of Business, Oregon State University,
scholars, with perceptions of its origins, functions, and impacts varying widely. In this
Corvallis, Oregon, USA
3
School of Labor and Employment Relations, comprehensive narrative review, we seek to provide much needed clarity around the
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, often studied and frequently demonstrated employee behavior of workplace gossip
Champaign, Illinois, USA
4
by synthesizing gossip studies conducted during the past four decades in both the
Department of Psychology, University of
Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, organization and psychology literatures. The first section of our review considers
USA
measures, designs, and theoretical frameworks featured in these studies. In the sec-
Correspondence ond section, we consolidate and integrate research findings from the extant litera-
Tianjun Sun, Department of Psychological
tures into three emerging categories of gossip antecedents (intrapersonal,
Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
KS 66506, USA. interpersonal, and organizational antecedents), four categories of gossip functions
Email: tianjunsun@ksu.edu
(information exchange, ego enhancement, social integration, and social segregation),
and three categories of gossip consequences (consequences for gossip senders/
recipients, for gossip targets, and beyond the triads). In the last section, we propose
an integrative model to guide future investigations on the antecedents, functions,
and consequences of workplace gossip. Our review aims to provide a clear overview
of existing gossip research across the organization and psychology literatures and to
highlight several important trends to open up various opportunities for future impact-
ful workplace gossip scholarship.
KEYWORDS
gossip antecedents, gossip consequences, gossip functions, review, workplace gossip
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N reputation. In the organizational realm, gossip is frequently viewed as

harmful such that several counterproductive behavior paradigms
Gossip is broadly defined as “a sender communicating to a receiver include gossip as one of its items or manifest behaviors. For example,
about a target who is absent or unaware of the content” (Dores Cruz gossip is considered an active form of mistreatment (Li et al., 2019), a
et al., 2021, p. 14). Historically, gossip has held a negative connotation type of deviance (Mitchell & Ambrose, 2007), and a form of social
and has been equated with idle chitchat or evil tongue (Schein, 1994). undermining behavior (Duffy et al., 2002).
Work by McAndrew (2017) details the horrific punishments Yet the provided definition of gossip certainly allows for the
(e.g., scold's bridle and ducking stool) gossiping women were sub- spread of positive as well as negative information and hence may not
jected to in Europe and colonial America from approximately anno exclusively have harmful intent or generate counter-productive
1500 to 1800. Still today, most countries have laws against engaging effects. In fact, the organizational macro literature has primarily
in slander or making false statements that damage another's viewed gossip as a positive behavior as it facilitates the spread of
important information across network ties (Eder & Enke, 1991;
All three authors contributed equally to this work. Granovetter, 1973; Rosnow & Fine, 1976). Research on the micro side
J Organ Behav. 2023;44:311–334. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 311
10991379, 2023, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.2653 by Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, Wiley Online Library on [23/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
312 SUN ET AL.
of organizations has also challenged the assumption of gossip as a gossip behavior not only in the organization literature but also in the
strictly negative workplace behavior and identified a handful of attitu- psychology literature in the past four decades, we provide one of the
dinal and behavioral benefits associated with individuals' engagement first integrative conceptual reviews on workplace gossip as a multiplex
in gossiping behavior at work, including affective well-being and inter- and powerful interpersonal behavior with various important functions.
personal influence (e.g., Brady et al., 2017). In support of these find- Second, we integrate the literature by grouping extant research within
ings on the mixed impacts of workplace gossip, extant theoretical four main functions of workplace gossip and revealing its antecedents
research has proposed gossip to serve a variety of positive and nega- across intraindividual, interindividual, and organizational levels along
tive functions in one's organizational life (Noon & Delbridge, 1993) with its consequences for diverging groups of audiences. In doing so,
and social life (Wert & Salovey, 2004) and even as related to human we enrich the nomological network associated with workplace gossip
evolution in general (Dunbar, 2004). Therefore, we believe that gossip as a central and distinct organizational construct. Third, by evaluating
may best be studied as a unique construct rather than as a mere part the current state of the literature in terms of empirical approaches,
or example of broad deviance-related constructs or measures. methodological features, and theoretical frameworks, we propose an
In this review, we study gossip as it relates to people in the work- integrative model with valuable opportunities for future research so
place, and we contextualize workplace gossip to pertain to gossip that the body of workplace gossip research can grow in meaningful
behavior with or about work colleagues and/or gossip that takes place and contributing ways.
in the physical or virtual workplace domain. In this sense, we are able Before moving onto our narrative review, it is also important to
to isolate and study workplace correlates of engaging in, overhearing, note that workplace gossip can be distinguished from several similar
or being the target of gossip behavior. Thus, our working definition of workplace constructs (see Table 1 for a summary). For example, rumor
workplace gossip is “an employee (i.e., the sender) communicating to has been often treated as synonymous with gossip in the general psy-
another individual at work (i.e., the receiver) about a workplace other chology literature (for a review, see Brady et al., 2017). However, in
(i.e., the target) who is absent or unaware of the content.” A review the work context, a key distinction is that the concept of rumor mainly
specific to workplace correlates of gossip is important, given that the refers to the pieces of information that have not been confirmed or
work context mandates a sense of professionalism or adherence to verified (i.e., the content of gossip), while gossip indicates the behav-
standards of conduct that are not present in social life (Bloor & ioral process an actor engages in to spread/share such information
Dawson, 1994). Thus, gossip may have unique implications and likely (Rosnow & Foster, 2005). Further, the content of gossip is necessarily
carries more salience in the context of work as it may detract from or about a human target, while a rumor generally concerns an event or a
interfere with work progress (Lee & Barnes, 2021). claim that may or may not include people (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2002;
Moreover, given that managers in organizations are tasked with Dores Cruz et al., 2021; Foster, 2004). However, when the topic of
providing and monitoring norms, rules, and organizational guidelines spreading rumors is described and studied as a behavior, and concerns
for employee conduct and interaction, recommendations about work- the topic of one or more other people, it may be synonymous with
place gossip are likely highly valued by managers and practitioners gossip.
(Kniffin & Wilson, 2010). Several important features of the provided Second, workplace gossip behavior differs from workplace reputa-
definition of workplace gossip should be noted. First, workplace gos- tion, which is defined as a shared cognition/belief about one's favor-
sip is a behavioral process during which information is spread from per- ability and overall appeal at work (Baer et al., 2018). However, it is
son to person (Rosnow & Foster, 2005). Therefore, the occurrence of possible that gossip serves as a function to impact another's reputa-
a gossip event includes at least two related individuals (i.e., a sender tion (e.g., gossiping about colleagues to enhance/undermine one's
and a recipient), as well as the information that is spread between own/others' reputation) or gossip may serve as a consequence of rep-
them. Second, the content of workplace gossip can pertain to others' utation (e.g., one's bad reputation triggers gossiping).
work-related and non-work-related behaviors and characteristics, as Third, unlike workplace gossip which typically occurs dyadically
long as it takes place in the work setting (Dores Cruz et al., 2021). In and sometimes in small groups, grapevine communication typically
particular, information featured during workplace gossip can range denotes the widely spreading of information throughout the organiza-
from unverified practices and policies that supervisors may implement tion, across all levels of employees and via all possible channels
in the organization/unit, to evaluations about others' work behaviors (e.g., informal communication network; Grosser et al., 2012). Thus, the
and performance, and to hearsay about relationship dynamics among grapevine is distinct from workplace gossip regarding its process of
other colleagues at work. Third, although workplace gossip usually spreading and scope of influence, although a grapevine can emerge
takes place between one sender and one recipient, its content often from the escalation of highly spread workplace gossip.
targets another person or group with whom the gossiper interacts at Last but not least, workplace gossip is different from social under-
work (Ellwardt, Labianca, & Wittek, 2012). Therefore, a thorough mining (Duffy et al., 2002) in several ways: First, workplace gossip
understanding of workplace gossip should consider its triadic struc- does not necessarily involve the sender's intention to cause harm to
ture: the sender(s) and the recipient(s) of the gossip, and the target(s) the target (and may sometimes be geared to benefit the target), while
who are gossiped about. social undermining is explicitly featured with such a harmful intention.
In this review, we aim to make three important contributions to Second, workplace gossip usually takes the form of verbal actions,
the gossip literature. First, by synthesizing the extant research on while social undermining can manifest in a variety of forms including
SUN ET AL. 313
TABLE 1 Comparison of workplace gossip and similar workplace constructs
Number of
Construct Definition Message content actors involved Valence Relation to workplace gossip
Workplace An employee (i.e., the sender) People Few Positive or

gossip communicating to another negative
individual at work (i.e., the receiver)
about a workplace other (i.e., the
target) who is absent or unaware
of the content
Rumor An unconfirmed statement or report Events, claims, people Few or many Positive or Message content of gossiping
that is in widespread circulation negative
(Rosnow, 2001)
Reputation A shared cognition/belief about a People Few or many Positive Antecedent to or outcome of
particular individual's favorability gossip
and overall appeal at work (Baer
et al., 2018)
Grapevine The broad informal communication Events, claims, people Many Positive or The network through which gossip
network at work that stretches negative spreads
throughout the organization across
all levels of employees and via all
possible channels (Grosser
et al., 2012)
Social Behaviors intended to hinder, over People Few Negative One possible function of gossip
undermining time, the ability to establish and (i.e., reputation undermining)
behavior maintain positive interpersonal
relationships, work-related success,
and favorable reputation (Duffy
et al., 2002)
both verbal and physical actions (e.g., by delaying work to make a col- (Smets et al., 2015). Recent survey findings of American white-collar
league look bad and not giving a colleague as much help as promised). workers showed that on average individuals spent 40 min per week—
or more than 30 h per year (i.e., almost a full work week!)—gossiping
about others at work including their boss, coworkers, HR, and the
2 | BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF THE executive team (Vitukevich, 2019).
C U R RE N T R E V I E W At the same time, the general psychology literature has also stud-
ied gossip as an important interpersonal behavior ubiquitous in our
A growing body of organizational research has explored workplace social lives ranging from our everyday interactions with family and
gossip. Importantly, however, this line of research has progressed friends, to encounters with newly acquainted others, and to virtual
without an underlying theoretical framework and until recently with- communications with many different individuals who share interests
out a clear definition. To remedy this unclarity, Dores Cruz et al. and hobbies with us (Foster, 2004). In fact, the origin of gossip
(2021) recently reviewed the extant gossip literature to provide a research in social science is deeply rooted in several streams of psy-
common and integrated definition that future scholarship may refer- chological research such as social psychology (Wert & Salovey, 2004),
ence, utilize, and build from. Surprisingly, an inclusive review of the lit- evolutionary psychology (Dunbar, 2004) and personality psychology
erature on workplace gossip has not been conducted to date, (Lyons & Hughes, 2015), which have guided the development of the
although two reviews have summarized a portion of the literature existing workplace gossip research in meaningful ways. As such, with
from one particular angle, namely, how gossip influences its recipients the aim to provide a comprehensive account of the extant gossip
(Halevy et al., 2019; Lee & Barnes, 2021). Therefore, it is fair to assess research in academia broadly and to inspire future workplace gossip
that currently the scholarly and practitioner communities do not have research with an interdisciplinary perspective, we also incorporate
a well-developed understanding of the workplace gossip construct gossip research from the psychology literature in this review and syn-
and its divergent antecedents and outcomes on the various layers of thesize these findings in our review along with organization research.1
organizations (e.g., individuals, dyads, groups, networks, and organiza- Overall, in this review, we aim to provide a thorough overview of
tions). As a result, managers cannot readily determine whether or the current state of gossip research and structure it in three parts. In
when to encourage or curtail this behavior or how to manage this the first part, we summarize and analyze gossip research from both
behavior most effectively in their organizations. Finally, a review on the organization and psychology literatures based on their
workplace gossip is important because gossip occurs frequently in
organizations and can even be considered a daily workplace practice 1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this valuable suggestion.
314 SUN ET AL.
methodological approaches (i.e., measures and designs) and theoreti- TABLE 2 . List of journals of literature search
cal frameworks. Then, in the second part, we synthesize the empirical Organizational journals (N = 21) Psychological journals (N = 14)
findings and theoretical propositions in these literatures based on the
Academy of management annals Annual review of psychology
varied antecedents, functions, and consequences of gossip. At last, in
Academy of management journal Review of general psychology
the third part, we delineate an integrative model which includes many
Academy of management review Frontiers of psychology
generative links for theory development and application on related
Administrative science quarterly Journal of applied social
organizational constructs, so that future research may benefit from
psychology
including workplace gossip in their theories and models and continue
Group and organization Journal of personality and
to enrich our understanding of this important and common workplace
management social psychology
phenomenon.
Human relations Personality and individual
To identify the relevant research to include in our review, we con- differences
ducted literature searches, using the EBSCO, PsycINFO, and Google Human resource management Personality and social
Scholar databases with the keyword “gossip” in leading organizational psychology bulletin
journals. In addition, we expanded our literature review by including Human resource management Personality and social
helpful research on gossip that was referenced in the articles we iden- review psychology review
tified in our search. Our inclusive search incorporates articles that Human resource management PloS one
focus on gossip empirically or theoretically, either involving the target journal
of the gossip, the gossip sender, or third parties who hear or learn Journal of applied psychology Proceedings of the National
about the gossip behavior. We excluded studies that measured gossip Academy of Sciences
behavior as part of a higher level construct (e.g., deviance, victimiza- Journal of management Psychological bulletin
tion, and political behavior), since mixing workplace gossip with other Journal of occupational Health Psychological review
Psychology
behaviors might obscure its unique relationships with antecedents and
outcomes. Table 2 summarizes the 21 leading organizational journals Journal of occupational and Psychological science
organizational psychology
we included in our search. In all, we uncovered 51 relevant articles,
Journal of organizational behavior Social psychological and
21 of which empirically tested workplace gossip, and 30 discussed
personality science
workplace gossip theoretically, dating from 1977 to 2021.
Journal of vocational behavior
Given that research on gossip also has roots in the broader field
Leadership quarterly
of psychological science, guided by the same criteria, we also searched
Organization science
the psychology literature to gather research conducted on gossip, to
compare how its nomological network may converge and diverge Organization studies
from the organization literature. In total, we identified 44 articles from Organizational behavior and
human decision processes
14 leading psychological journals (see Table 2), of which 27 were
empirical and 17 theoretical, dating back as far as 1978 and as recent Personnel psychology
as 2020.2 Strategic management journal
To gain an understanding of the development of gossip research

in both the organization and psychology literatures, we tabulated the
number of published articles in both literatures in Figure 1. As shown 3 | METHODOLOGICAL AND
in Figure 1, although being relatively dormant before the 2000s, gos- T H E O R E T I C A L A P P R O A C H E S OF GO S S I P
sip research has been obtaining increased interests in the past two RE SE AR CH
decades, a trend appearing in both literatures. In particular, we
noticed a fairly steep growth trend in both the psychological and orga- 3.1 | Measures
nizational fields of gossip research in the most recent 3–4 years,
which makes the current review especially timely. In the next section, 3.1.1 | Scale-like measures
we first review these articles based on several methodological and
theoretical features by summarizing them across both the organiza- Over the decades, scholars have created various scale instruments to
tion and the psychology literatures, so that we can provide a compre- empirically measure gossip behavior. For example, Loughry and Tosi
hensive picture of how gossip has been studied in the general (2008) developed a three-item scale focused on the frequency of
discipline of social and behavioral science. coworkers' gossip behavior, with response choices ranging from
almost never to almost always. Kuo et al. (2015) developed a measure
2
Among all identified articles in the psychology literature, four articles (i.e., Bashir
of gossip at work, including 10 questions about gossip that is related
et al., 2020; Kong, 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Martinescu et al., 2019b) completely relied on to work and 10 questions about gossip unrelated to work. Wu et al.
employee samples and/or examined research questions highly relevant to the work context.
(2018) reported a three-item scale that measures negative workplace
Therefore, we categorized these papers into the organization literature in our review, even
though they were published in a psychology journal (i.e., Frontiers of Psychology). gossip behavior by coworkers and/or supervisors. Erdogan et al.
SUN ET AL. 315
F I G U R E 1 Time trends for the published

articles on gossip in the organization and
psychology literatures. Org = organization
literature; Psych = psychology literature
(2015) developed a four-item Tendency to Gossip (TTG) Scale which time segment was video recorded and subsequently coded for various
measures one's general tendency to gossip about others at work. behavioral gossip criteria. These non-scale measures can be highly
Brady et al. (2017) developed a scale that measures employees' useful when gossip behavior is manipulated and/or observed in a
engagement in positive (five items) and negative (five items) gossip well-controlled laboratory setting.
about their supervisors and/or coworkers. Extending the context to
the virtual world, Romera et al. (2018) developed a Cybergossip Ques-
tionnaire for Adolescents (CGQ-A) scale to measure high school stu- 3.1.3 | Broader measures
dents' cybergossip behaviors. Although these multi-item scales (some
of which were even multi-dimensional) are encouraged to be used in The literature also shows an interest in investigating gossip beyond
most research settings, several single-item scales were also developed the activity of behaviorally engaging in gossip behavior. Some addi-
and can be useful in occasions where realistic constraints exist, such tional criteria that have been assessed include the desire to engage in
as in an experience sampling study with a limited survey interval or in gossip behavior (Peters et al., 2017), the likelihood to relay gossip
a social network study with a focus on mapping out the spread of gos- information to friends (Yao et al., 2014), individual gossip intention
sip among a group of individuals. For example, Martinescu et al. (Martinescu et al., 2019a), and the prevalence of perceived negative
(2019a) measured gossip behavior with one item, where participants workplace gossip (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012), indicating whether
could answer either “yes” or “no” to the question of having talked individuals perceive that their coworkers are engaging in gossip about
with a third party about a negative event involving another person. them at work. Relatedly, Wittek and Wielers (1998) developed a Gos-
Similarly, in research by Jaeger et al. (1980), a gossip story about stu- sip Scale, gauging the overall prevalence of gossip behavior in the
dents was experimentally introduced in university-level classes. The workplace, or in a school setting as referring to gossip behaviors by
students enrolled in these classes were asked a week later whether classmates.
they had retold the gossip to others, indicating their engagement in In addition, some other researchers captured the motivations and
gossip behavior. functions in developing their gossip measures. For example, the Gos-
sip Functions Questionnaire (GFQ; Foster, 2004) is a 24-item ques-
tionnaire that measures four social functions of gossip: information,
3.1.2 | Non-scale measures entertainment, friendship, and influence. Similarly, Beersma and van
Kleef (2012) developed the measurement instrument of Motives to
Some authors have used non-scale indicators to measure gossip Gossip Questionnaire that identifies four distinct motivations for gos-
behavior, such as by creating behavioral opportunities for participants sip, namely, exerting negative influence, information gathering and
to engage in gossip which may then be coded for analytical purposes. validation, social enjoyment, and group protection, as unique motives
For example, Feinberg et al. (2014) asked participants to work for engaging in gossip behavior. Dores Cruz, Balliet, et al. (2019) elab-
together in a public goods exercise and subsequently gave them the orated upon these four motives by including a fifth motive, emotion
opportunity to send a gossip note about one of their interaction part- venting, described as the desire to share emotional experiences. Simi-
ners to an upcoming game partner. Similarly, Sommerfeld et al. (2007) lar to the motives to gossip scale, Yovetich and Drigotas (1999) devel-
provided participants with the opportunity to write a short gossip oped the 18-item secret-sharing motivations scale, as assessing
message about other players' decision behaviors. Further, Martinescu reasons to engage in gossiping toward different recipients. Even dis-
et al. (2019a) provided a time interval in their study during which par- positional perspectives have not been overlooked in the empirical
ticipants had the opportunity to share gossip with a confederate. This gossip literature. Litman and Pezzo (2005) developed a scale for the
316 SUN ET AL.
individual difference of attitudes toward gossip, consisting of two fac- frequent contacts. Relatedly, Grosser et al. (2010) used network anal-
tors denoting the social value of gossip and the moral value of gossip. ysis to understand how employees' propensity to engage in positive
Similarly, Nevo et al. (1994) created the Gossip Tendency Question- and negative gossip is driven by their underlying relationship ties.
naire (GTQ), an individual difference measure that predicts who may They found that expressive friendship ties between employees were
be more likely to engage in gossip behavior. positively related to engaging in both positive and negative gossip,
whereas instrumental workflow ties (which were less trusting than
friendship ties) were related solely to positive gossip.
3.1.4 | Adapted gossip measures
Some scholars have adapted existing gossip measures to better suit 3.2.2 | Experimental method
their empirical studies. For example, Ellwardt, Wittek, and Wielers
(2012) adapted Wittek and Wielers' (1998) general gossip tendency Scholars have also used the experimental research methodology to
scale to operationalize their dependent variable, employees' tendency study gossip. For example, Jaeger et al. (1980) conducted an experi-
to gossip about managers. Massar et al. (2012) adapted the attitudes ment by planting several versions of gossip about students in large
to gossip scale (Litman & Pezzo, 2005) to a scenario format. In sum, university classes and tracked their subsequent transmission to
scholars have used various instruments and behavioral anchors to others. Martinescu et al. (2019a) used the experimental method to
measure gossip conduct and attributes associated with gossip. With vary power of the gossip sender and recipient through assigning them
our aim to encourage future research on workplace gossip, we hope the role of an officer (high power) or a crew member (low power) in a
the rendered summary of all the ways in which gossip may be team task, which shaped individuals' gossip motives and behaviors.
assessed empirically will be helpful to inform and inspire future gossip Wu et al. (2015) manipulated participants' anticipation that their deci-
scholars' measurement choices. sions in a group game would be spread to others via gossip. Feinberg
et al. (2014) conducted an experiment during which participants could
send gossip messages to other (future) participants in some trials but
3.2 | Research methods were not able to do so in other trials (i.e., a within-subject manipula-
tion of gossip opportunity). Findings showed that having (vs. not hav-
3.2.1 | Survey method ing) the opportunity to gossip increased participants' level of
cooperation.
The extant gossip scholarship also reflects a wide array of research Besides manipulating gossip with concrete tasks for participants
methods used to answer research questions in this literature. Most to work on, other research have manipulated gossip with a vignette-
common is the survey method, where participants respond to ques- based design, where participants read a scenario describing a gossip-
tions about gossip that they engaged in or others engaged in related situation, which allows scholars to, in turn, capture and study
(e.g., Erdogan et al., 2015; Loughry & Tosi, 2008). In turn, gossip cri- participants' responses to the vignette. For example, Dores Cruz,
teria are linked to other constructs that either serve as antecedents to Beersma, et al. (2019) asked participants to read a scenario in which
or consequences of gossip. Among survey-based gossip research, two participants imagined overhearing a gossip conversation about a free-
emerging streams are worth noting. riding team member (with their relationships with the free-rider
First, some scholars have employed a critical incident method by manipulated) and recorded their responses to the gossip accordingly.
asking participants to recall a specific event and to answer questions Relatedly, Bozoyan and Vogt (2016) created a series of vignettes in
about this event. For example, Baumeister et al. (2004) instructed par- which participants either read positive or negative gossip from a
ticipants to remember a negative workplace event affecting a cowor- friend or a stranger about a third party and subsequently gauged trust
ker and subsequently asked whether they personally engaged in in the gossip target. A final experimental example is Locklear et al.'s
gossip behavior about this event. Similarly, Hartung et al. (2019) and (2021) research, which showed that a 10-day gratitude journaling
Beersma and van Kleef (2012) asked their participants to think about intervention was effective in significantly reducing participants' nega-
a past situation when they had a conversation with someone about a tive gossip behavior via enhancing their self-control resources.
person who was not present during the conversation, so that they
could investigate the motives behind the participants' recalled gossip
conversation. 3.2.3 | Inductive method
Second, some researchers have used a social network design to
study how gossip is spread among individuals in the same network Research using both the survey and the experimental methods can be
and how nodes or individuals are connected through gossip criteria. viewed as taking a deductive approach to probe gossip and its related
For example, Ellwardt, Wittek, and Wielers (2012) displayed a gossip antecedents/consequences, because they usually rely on general the-
network of positive and negative information about the manager, ories and hypotheses to make specific predictions and render conclu-
revealing that negative gossip spread more readily between friends sions. However, we have also noted several occasions where
(vs. non-friends) and spread extensively among more (vs. less) researchers employed an inductive approach to study gossip by
SUN ET AL. 317
drawing general conclusions from specific observations, which is Hoye & Lievens, 2009), covering a broad spectrum of commonly used
highly beneficial for theory building. The first example is research by theories in the study of human behaviors in the workplace and in the
Quinn (1977), which used the qualitative methodology by asking partic- broader social world.
ipants to answer interview questions related to gossip and found that The successful grounding of gossip behavior within these various
workplace romantic relationships impact organizations as the individ- theoretical frameworks demonstrates that gossip is a multipurpose
uals involved in the workplace romance are frequently the topic of construct that is well placed using many theoretical perspectives and
gossip conversations among the workforce. is studied alongside many organizational constructs. Yet, in the
The second inductive research example is work by Smith (2014), absence of a unified theoretical model, the extant literature does not
which used the computational modeling approach (more specifically present a clear image of what we know and what we do not yet know;
multi-agent modeling) to predict how recipients of gossip may react therefore, scholars may find it difficult to determine where theoretical
to the gossip (e.g., degree of interaction with the gossiper or incorpo- progress could be made. Our review of the accrued gossip research
ration of the gossip into impressions) as a function of different combi- groups findings into emergent categories of antecedents, functions,
nations of assumptions about gossip. A third example is Robbins and and consequences of gossip for both the organizational and psycho-
Karan (2020) who utilized the naturalistic observation methodology to logical literatures. Next, we focus on these three important aspects of
examine gossip by equipping university student participants with elec- gossip research in both literatures with the intent to summarize what
tronically activated recorders they carried for several days, with the we know about workplace gossip. Figure 2 summarizes the integrative
purpose of studying which topics (e.g., social information, achieve- summary that emerged from analyzing both literatures and also high-
ments, and appearance) and targets (e.g., acquaintances and celebri- lights how the two literatures converge and diverge in terms of which
ties) most frequently emerged in gossip conversations taking place in emergent categories of antecedents, functions, and consequences of
participants' real lives. gossip have been studied.
Overall, gossip scholars have used a wide variety of measures and
research designs to study gossip, both in the organizational and the
psychological literatures. While the use of such a wide diversity of 4 | A NT E C E D E N T S , F U N C T I O N S , A N D
methodologies makes the existing literature on gossip difficult and CONSEQUENCES OF GOSSIP
impractical to represent and analyze quantitatively (e.g., via meta-anal-
ysis), it particularly benefits from qualitative, narrative review which 4.1 | Antecedents of gossip
allows for organization, and analysis of a literature that employs
diverse measures and research methodologies. Based on our review, we gleaned that gossip behavior can arise from
a series of factors that fit within three broad categories: intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and organizational antecedents. Table A1 shows a sum-
3.3 | Theoretical frameworks mary of the empirical findings from 21 articles that we identified from
our literature search with direct examination of such antecedent.3
A noteworthy observation about the literature on workplace gossip is
the absence of an overarching or united theoretical framework that
could guide researchers in their selection of affective, cognitive, atti- 4.1.1 | Intrapersonal antecedents
tudinal, and behavioral constructs to represent antecedents, functions,
and consequences of gossip. An advantage of the lack of overarching The intrapersonal perspective describes psychological factors inherent
theory is that researchers can place and have placed gossip within var- in individuals themselves, either as describing the gossip senders, recip-
ious existing theoretical frameworks that predict relationships among ients, or targets, that cause or are associated with gossip behavior.
a wide variety of organizational research topics. For example, gossip Both the organization and the psychology literatures have examined a
scholars have drawn from affective events theory (e.g., Martinescu range of intrapersonal antecedents including moods, personality char-
et al., 2019b), attribution theory (e.g., Lee & Barnes, 2021), balance acteristics, attitudes, motivational characteristics, and demographics.
theory (e.g., Weaver & Bosson, 2011), conservation of resource the- First, several papers discussed the moods or discrete emotions that indi-
ory (e.g., Liu et al., 2020), evolutionary psychology (e.g., McAndrew & viduals experience as linked to their gossiping tendencies (e.g., Dores
Milenkovic, 2002), expectancy theory (e.g., Spoelma & Hetrick, 2021), Cruz, Beersma, et al., 2019; Feinberg et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2018). For
fairness theory (e.g., Varty et al., 2020), focus theory (e.g., Shank example, Yao et al. (2014) showed that the level of perceived surprise
et al., 2019), goal framing theory (e.g., Giardini & Wittek, 2019), net- spurred gossip in a laboratory setting, while Locklear et al. (2021) found
work generation theory (e.g., Erdogan et al., 2015), self-consistency
3
theory (e.g., Wu et al., 2018), social cognition theory (e.g., DiFonzo & For completeness, articles that discussed antecedents without studying them directly or
empirically are also included in the narrative overview (but not included in Table A1). In
Bordia, 2002), social comparison theory (e.g., Smit & Montag- addition, although we summarized studies from the organization and psychology literatures
Smit, 2019; Wert & Salovey, 2004), social exchange theory in separate sections in Table A1 (for the purpose of presenting a clearer state of each
literature), we did not make this distinction in our narrative review below because many of
(e.g., Bashir et al., 2020; Martinescu et al., 2019a, 2021), social learn-
the included constructs have similar or identical theoretical meanings despite being studied in
ing theory (e.g., Bai et al., 2019), and social network theory (e.g., van different literatures (e.g., moods, personality characteristics, or demographics).
318 SUN ET AL.
FIGURE 2 An integrative summary of the extant gossip research in the organization and the psychology literatures
that gratitude manipulated in the field reduced employees' reported Additionally, past research has identified various motivational char-
gossiping at work. Personality characteristics can also be a contributing acteristics from gossip senders as well as recipients that serve as intra-
factor for individuals' gossip behavior. For instance, researchers have personal antecedents to gossip. For example, individuals' needs for
found that people high on extraversion or neuroticism (Hartung & drama, attention, and moral information have been separately theo-
Renner, 2013; Robbins & Karan, 2020), dispositional curiosity rized to lead to gossip behavior (Frankowski et al., 2016; Michelson
(Litman & Pezzo, 2007; also see Kashdan et al., 2020, for a similar the- et al., 2010; Wert & Salovey, 2004). Empirically, Feinberg et al. (2012)
oretical proposition), negative affectivity (Feinberg et al., 2012; Wu found that people's prosocial motivation to help others prompted them
et al., 2018), dark personality characteristics such as cynicism (Bashir to share negative gossip about another target. Smit and Montag-Smit
et al., 2020), and dark triad traits such as psychopathy and narcissism (2019) showed that employees' preferences for sharing and seeking
(Hartung et al., 2019; Lyons & Hughes, 2015) engaged in more gossip pay information determined their gossip involvement and behavior.
behavior. In a sample of college students, Watson (2011) found that Martinescu et al. (2019a) found that various employee motives includ-
gossip was related to external locus of control, high self-monitoring, ing information seeking, influence, and support seeking led to more
low self-efficacy, and low self-concept clarity. gossip behavior. Studying intrapersonal motivation in the form of men-
Moreover, certain individual attitudinal characteristics have been tal resources, Locklear et al. (2021) found that employees' self-control
found to trigger gossip behavior. These characteristics include social resources were negatively related to their gossip behavior at work.
value and moral value toward gossiping (Litman & Pezzo, 2005), such Lastly, some demographics such as gender and age were found to
that people are more likely to engage in gossip when they intend to influence gossip behavior, in that women (vs. men) and younger
use gossip as a fun way to share information with others, when they (vs. older) people engaged in more gossip behavior (Massar et al., 2012;
think they can learn about others, when they believe in the veracity of Robbins & Karan, 2020; also see Ragins, 1989, for similar theoretical
the gossip, and when they think it is ethical to talk about others. propositions) and that males and females were more interested in gos-
Another individual characteristic identified (specifically in women) was sip about same-sex (vs. opposite-sex) others (McAndrew et al., 2007).
the perceived mate value (described as a female's perceived level of
attractiveness as a potential partner to males; Massar et al., 2012),
such that a higher tendency to gossip could be attributable to a 4.1.2 | Interpersonal antecedents
woman's higher mate value. Values and beliefs aside, Ellwardt,
Labianca, and Wittek (2012) found, in a sample of employees from a The interpersonal perspective describes factors at the dyadic or group
nonprofit childcare organization, that gossip generally stemmed from level involving gossip senders, recipients, or targets that drive or facili-
individuals who had low trust in management. tate gossip behavior. Both the organization and the psychology
SUN ET AL. 319
literatures have considered interpersonal dynamics as an important Further, organizational change has been empirically linked to the
influence on (workplace) gossip. Beyond this, the organization litera- occurrence of organizational gossip behavior (Mills, 2010), and organi-
ture has also studied group dynamics, while the psychology literature zational practices such as telecommuting rules and the associated pro-
has studied observation of others' behavior as a critical preceding con- fessional isolation of telecommuting have been theorized to incite
dition to gossip emergence. Specifically, interpersonal dynamics refer workplace gossip (Cooper & Kurland, 2002). Informally, competition
to relationship and communication qualities between gossip senders among coworkers as a climate-characteristic has been discussed as an
and gossip targets. For instance, negative interpersonal dynamics antecedent to gossip behaviors at work (Hodson, 2004).
(i.e., low trust, non-friendliness, infrequent contact with managers,
and incivility) between employees and managers have been found to
nurture gossip among employees about their managers (Ellwardt, 4.2 | Functions of gossip
Wittek, & Wielers, 2012), which could be a result of perceptions of
managers' psychological contract violations (Bashir et al., 2020). Yao Both the organization and psychology literatures reveal that gossip is
et al. (2014) showed through two experiments that familiarity with a broad and encompassing behavior that serves a wide range of func-
the targets and the interest level of the gossip content predicted tions. These diverse functions may benefit or harm individuals, dyads,
gossip behavior, which were mediated by the emotion, expectation, groups, networks, and organizations, making gossip a broadly impor-
and reputation information conveyed in the gossip. tant behavior across one's work life and one's social sphere. Our
Gossip has also been found to emerge from certain group dynam- review has uncovered four emerging functions of gossip behavior:
ics. Power structures and hierarchical relationships, especially the asso- information exchange, ego enhancement, social integration, and social
ciated power struggles in a group, can be leading antecedents to segregation. It is important to note that functions reviewed in this
gossip among members of the group (Martinescu et al., 2019a; for a research refer specifically to the intended psychological needs or gos-
similar theoretical proposition, see van Bunderen et al., 2018). From a siper desires that could be fulfilled by the gossip behavior, rather than
social network perspective, expressive friendship ties, instrumental the driving forces that motivate one's engagement in gossiping
workflow ties, and the structural embeddedness of an individual in a (Beersma & van Kleef, 2012; Dores Cruz, Balliet, et al., 2019; see
friendship network were found to be substantive drivers of gossip Graso et al., 2020, and Skitka, 2009, for a similar approach on distin-
behavior (Grosser et al., 2010). Entrepreneur centrality has also been guishing motives vs. functions of enacted justice). Table A2 shows a
theorized to lead to informational gossip (Hallen & Pahnke, 2016), and summary of findings from 22 empirical articles that investigated the
the maintenance of in-group versus out-group status has been theo- functions of gossip.4
rized to lead to gossip behavior in groups (Wert & Salovey, 2004). In
their theoretical review, Giardini and Wittek (2019) summarized six
reasons that inhibit the spread of third-party gossip: interdependence 4.2.1 | Information exchange functions
between the gossip sender and gossip recipient, dependence by the
gossip sender on the target of the gossip, expected material harm to According to both the organization and psychology literatures, gossip
the self by gossiping, expected reputational harm to the self by gossip- often emerges when the parties involved are seeking or sharing infor-
ing, protecting gossip recipient(s) from reputational harm, and the pres- mation. In fact, the information exchange (sending and receiving infor-
ence of a positive tie between the gossip recipient and gossip target. mation) function of gossip is the most prevalently identified type of
Lastly, observation of others' behaviors can also be a cause or impe- function in both literatures. This function type includes gossip behav-
tus for gossip. Peters et al. (2017) found that witnessing others' posi- ior that intents to disseminate information, to make sense of their sur-
tive or negative deviance led to the instigation of gossip. In addition, a roundings or other individuals, or a mix of both of these intentions.
recurring theme that leads to gossip, as theorized in multiple articles, is Fine and Rosnow (1978) first theorized that gossip can serve the func-
the observation of close others' romantic lives (Mano & Gabriel, 2006; tion of disseminating information, and subsequent empirical research
Pierce et al., 1996; Powell & Foley, 1998; Quinn, 1977). confirms that the information sharing and gathering functions of gos-
sip are highly salient and prevalent (Hartung & Renner, 2013; Lyons &
Hughes, 2015; Watson, 2011). Beersma and van Kleef (2012) identi-
4.1.3 | Organizational antecedents fied information gathering and validation as a distinct motivation for
gossip. Noon and Delbridge (1993) offered theoretical explanations
The organizational perspective describes organization-level factors that the information conveyed through gossip can help maintain
that may lead to or facilitate gossip behavior. The identified organiza- group values and contribute to structuring regulations and exercising
tional antecedents from past research include formal aspects relating control.
to organizational structures or policies, as well as informal aspects per- Similarly, though not directly investigating the relationships,
taining to organizational climates. For example, using case study sam- Labianca et al. (1998) argued that positive/negative information
ples of airline employees, cattle ranchers, and competitive rowers,
4
In our narrative review of the functions of gossip, we discuss the functions more broadly by
Kniffin and Wilson (2010) found that the use of group-level organiza-
again incorporating articles that proposed, theorized, and discussed functions of gossip
tional rewards can facilitate the emergence of group-beneficial gossip. without empirically testing them.
320 SUN ET AL.
communicated via gossip can validate and strengthen individuals' theorized that gossip can help enhance individuals' power to influence
existing positive/negative attitudes toward a third party. Smith (2014) decision-making in organizations. Empirically, Beersma and van Kleef
also proposed in their theoretical article that gossip from others about (2012) identified social influence exertion as a distinct motive for gos-
social targets can help recipients improve their ability to detect targets sip. McAndrew and Milenkovic (2002) also empirically showed that
who perform rare negative behaviors. Moreover, empirically, Smit and gossip senders and recipients were perceived as having enhanced sta-
Montag-Smit (2019) showed that gossiping helped individuals collect tus in their group. McAndrew et al. (2007) further confirmed that gos-
social information that facilitated social comparison. As an informa- siping is a status enhancement strategy and showed empirically its
tional signal, it has been theorized that gossip can help prevent and influence exertion function in groups.
resolve conflicts by alerting a norm violator that their misbehavior has Gossiping can be a form of social control as well, as theorized in
been noticed by others (Darr, 1999). Feinberg et al. (2012, 2014) also Komiya et al. (2016). Relatedly, in their theoretical discussions, Karre-
found that individuals used reputational gossip information to selec- man and Alvesson (2001) posited that in sales encounters or situa-
tively interact with individuals who were described as cooperative tions where controlling or influencing the direction of others'
rather than selfish. The more negatively an individual was portrayed behaviors is key, employees' engagement in gossip with customers on
through gossip by previous interaction partners, the more likely it was topics of their interests may increase the likelihood and degree of
for that individual to be subsequently ostracized by his or her new sales success. Research has also empirically demonstrated that the
interaction partners. ego enhancement function of gossip—specifically influence exertion—
Further, the information exchange function of gossip also covers can be observed in multiple cultures (Hartung & Renner, 2013;
the domain of receiving and interpreting information such that gossip Lyons & Hughes, 2015; Watson, 2011).
can be seen as an activity of sense-making, facilitating one's under- Moreover, gossiping has been theorized to serve the purpose of
standing of poorly understood issues. For example, Hodson (2004) personal reputation and emotion management (Szamado et al., 2016;
theorized that gossip can inform individuals about standards and Traag et al., 2013). Empirically, Sommerfeld et al. (2007) showed that
appropriate behaviors that are expected in groups. Empirically, Shank through transmitting social information, gossip senders were able to
et al. (2019) showed that gossip made injunctive norms (i.e., rules for manage their personal reputations. The function of shaping reputa-
how not to behave) salient and served as a reminder of well- tions and status enhancement through gossiping behavior has been
established norms and regulations, which is in line with Myers' (2002) empirically supported in other studies as well (e.g., McAndrew &
theorizing that gossip repeats valued informational themes among Milenkovic, 2002; Peters & Fonseca, 2020).
group members. Sommerfeld et al. (2007) showed empirically that Gossip can also be used to manage one's expressed emotions in
gossip functions as an alternative to direct observation for transmit- front of others. As some empirical examples, Waddington (2005)
ting social information, and Baumeister et al. (2004), using a student found that employees sometimes engaged in gossip so that they could
sample, zeroed in on the informational function of gossip to demon- appear to be feeling the same emotions that their coworkers experi-
strate in particular that it facilitates learning about how one should enced, and Bashir et al. (2020) showed that gossiping can be a way to
behave in their idiosyncratic culture. These authors noted that infor- release anger so that others may understand one's frustrations. Relat-
mation transferred via gossip serves the functional purpose of edly, Dores Cruz, Balliet, et al. (2019) found that gossiping also helped
describing the norms and rules that the gossipers and the broader cul- vent negative emotions presumably to restore and protect one's psy-
ture expect their audience to adhere to. Balogun and Johnson (2005) chological well-being. The reputation and emotion management func-
theorized that gossiping is a social process of interactions that can tion of gossip also encompasses the management of self-relevant
help give meaning and understanding in organizational settings. Mills evaluations. For instance, Wert and Salovey (2004) theorized gossip-
(2010) provided empirical support for this notion by finding that gos- ing as a form of self-evaluation that can aid social comparisons. Marti-
siping was a useful way for employees to enact sense-making and nescu et al. (2014) also empirically confirmed the self-evaluative
social exchange. To sum, social information, reputational information, function of gossip, such that gossiping about others in a negative way
and work-related information can all be disseminated through gossip enhanced one's own perceived value and raised one's self-protection
and be used for individuals' sense-making processes in their particular concerns, while gossiping about others in a positive way increased
work contexts (Michelson et al., 2010; Yovetich & Drigotas, 1999). one's motivation for self-improvement.
4.2.2 | Ego enhancement functions 4.2.3 | Social integration functions
Gossip also often serves a rather egotistic function, which has been A recurring theme in gossip research from the psychology literature
theorized and examined in both the organization and psychology liter- (but one that is virtually absent in the organization literature) is the
atures. Early research has stated that people can engage in gossip social integration function of gossip. Fine and Rosnow (1978) first the-
behavior to satisfy their needs for influence exertion and reputation oretically entertained the idea that people engage in gossip to provide
management (Fine & Rosnow, 1978; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). Halevy entertainment for themselves and others, as gossip may be passed on
et al. (2019) theorized that gossiping is a form of self-serving or for amusement or enjoyment. Watson (2011) provided empirical evi-
group-benefitting influence exertion. Van Bunderen et al. (2018) also dence for the entertainment function of gossip and also showed that
SUN ET AL. 321
friendships emerged from people engaging in gossip behaviors monitoring. Kluver et al. (2014) further theorized that gossiping as a
together. Beersma and van Kleef (2012) also identified social enjoy- peer monitoring behavior serves an informal sanctioning function, as
ment empirically as a function for gossiping. Supportive empirical evi- it gives the opportunity to shame group norm or value violators while
dence for gossip facilitating social enjoyment was also found in creating lasting in-group bonds and loyalties, such that norm trans-
several other studies across multiple samples from different countries gressions are discouraged and punished through the (potential) nega-
(Dores Cruz, Balliet, et al., 2019; Hartung et al., 2019; Hartung & tive gossip about them.
Renner, 2013; Lyons & Hughes, 2015). The notion that gossip serves Finally, research reveals that gossip can serve multiple functions
a relatedness advancement function has also been theoretically articu- simultaneously. The functions of information exchange, ego enhance-
lated. Specifically, parties involved in gossip have a sense of intimacy ment, and social integration have been empirically shown to be able
among them, which has been argued to strengthen their friendship to pair together and to have independent impacts simultaneously
ties (Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004). (e.g., Hartung & Renner, 2013; Lyons & Hughes, 2015;
Similarly, several scholars have theorized that relatedness behav- Watson, 2011). Additionally, a gossip instance could simultaneously
ior (i.e., interpersonal cooperative conduct) can be advanced through serve the social integration and social segregation functions, especially
gossip (Szamado et al., 2016; Traag et al., 2013). It has also been in groups with pronounces in-group and out-group boundaries. For
shown that gossip is a powerful tool for group protection as it can example, when an employee expresses negative gossip about norm-
increase the cohesion and relatedness of in-group members and make violating and unacceptable behaviors from someone they do not like
them feel protected from being harmed by those outside of their (i.e., an out-group member) to someone with whom they have a close
group who have conflicting interests to the well-being of the group relationship (i.e., an in-group member), gossip serves both the social
(e.g., competitors from other groups and other organizations) integration function by seeking relatedness from one's in-group and at
(Beersma & van Kleef, 2011; Dores Cruz, Beersma, et al., 2019; the same time serves the social segregation function by imposing
Feinberg et al., 2012). social sanctions on one's out-group.
4.2.4 | Social segregation functions 4.3 | Consequences of gossip
Although organizational scholars have largely overlooked the social In our review of the literature, we discovered that the various conse-
integration functions of gossip, they have studied a function that has quences of gossip can be integrated (based on who or what the con-
not been investigated in the psychology literature: the social segrega- sequences are imposed on) into three categories: consequences for
tion function of gossiping in the workplace, specifying how gossip is gossip senders/recipients, consequences for gossip targets, and con-
used to create distance from or cause harm to others. Social segrega- sequences beyond the triads (i.e., of gossip senders, recipients, and
tion can manifest as reputation undermining of others at work, as Hod- targets). Encapsulating the literature into these categories, Table A3
son (2004) theorized. A series of work by other scholars has made summarizes findings from 25 empirical studies that directly examined
similar theoretical arguments. For example, gossip may be enacted to the consequences of gossip in the organization and psychology
spread negative social evaluations and to create a negative impression literatures.5
of a person (i.e., gossip target) in others' minds (Shani &
Westphal, 2016), and gossip among employees can damage the repu-
4.3.1 | Consequences for gossip senders/recipients
tation, social standing and perceived self-worth of its targets
(Severance et al., 2013). In addition, Chua et al. (2008) theorized that Most of the research on gossip, across both the organization and
reputation undermining may erode existing positive perceptions of psychology literatures, has looked at the gossip consequences from
the reliability and competence of gossip targets, and Kulik et al. (2008) the gossip sender/recipient perspectives. Although it is possible that
posited that gossip can form evaluative impressions of coworkers gossip senders and recipients may experience different consequences
(who are gossip targets) and damage their reputation. Westphal and from the same gossip event, the literature has not made such a
Khanna (2003) further theorized gossip to be a subtle distancing nuanced distinction but rather has treated the consequences for
mechanism toward others, which in theory may enforce stigmatization gossip senders and gossip recipients as largely similar. Therefore, in
(Paetzold et al., 2008) and nurture mistreatment in the workplace (Li this section, we review extant research with a focus on gossip
et al., 2019). consequences for both senders and recipients together.
Besides these examples of the dark function of gossip as a social First, gossip may lead to changes in senders and recipients on
segregation mechanism, other researchers have argued that gossip important work attitudes and moods. Studying recipients, Martinescu
can also fulfill a more functional purpose by enhancing sanctions in et al. (2014) showed that through the self-evaluative function, gossip
teams and groups (di Stefano et al., 2015). Bashir et al. (2020) empiri- behavior led to individuals to experience higher levels of self-
cally demonstrated that gossip released anger for senders and served
to punish targets for their wrongdoing. Loughry and Tosi (2008) also 5
In addition to the empirical studies, we again discuss relevant theoretical and conceptual
provided empirical evidence that gossip is a form of indirect peer ideas related to gossip consequences in the narrative review below.
322 SUN ET AL.
improvement and self-promotion values and increased concerns for of being in a group with an expected high tendency to gossip
self-protection. Their findings also showed that self-conscious emo- (Beersma & van Kleef, 2011).
tions such as pride and fear emerged as a result of gossip among Relatedly, it has been theorized that gossip may be linked to
recipients. In addition, Dores Cruz, Beersma, et al. (2019) showed that increased trust and in turn increased cohesion, among gossip senders
gossiping among group members helped release negative emotions. and recipients (Bozoyan & Vogt, 2016; Labianca et al., 1998). Extend-
Relatedly, Waddington (2005) showed that engaging in gossip helped ing these findings empirically, Rudnicki et al. (2019) found that the
with stress relief but also led to guilt in gossip senders. In a series of effects of gossip on increasing trust with gossip partners was moder-
studies, Brady et al. (2017) demonstrated that initiating and participat- ated by gossipers' prosociality, such that prosocial individuals trusted
ing in workplace gossip were linked to several other outcomes, includ- their interaction partners more after gossiping, whereas proself indi-
ing positively to job ambiguity and negatively to job-related affective viduals trusted their partners less. However, some researchers have
well-being. theorized and raised the alternative possibility that gossip may also
In addition, power can be enhanced through involvement in gos- lower trust in gossip senders and recipients. While in-group members
siping activity. For example, as a result mostly of the ego enhance- may perceive gossip senders with more trustworthiness (Lee &
ment function, engaging in gossip has been theorized to contribute to Barnes, 2021), behavioral problems may also occur as a result of indi-
self-perceptions of coercive power, reward power, expert power, and rect peer monitoring within the group (Loughry & Tosi, 2008), and
referent power, and peers' evaluation of the gossip senders' informal lower cognition- and affect-based trust may arise from the
influence (Kurland & Pelled, 2000; Noon & Delbridge, 1993). In addi- segregation-based environment (Chua et al., 2008). Consequently,
tion, Erdogan et al. (2015) found that initiating gossip behaviors gossip senders may be kept at a social distance by others, and conflict
increased one's advice network centrality, which can be seen as an between senders and targets may arise as results of gossip
indicator of informal power in teams/organizations. (Hodson, 2004; Shani & Westphal, 2016).
Performance evaluation is another category of consequence of
gossip for senders and recipients. For example, increases in
employee reflective learning and job performance were shown in 4.3.2 | Consequences for gossip targets
multiple samples to be positively impacted by gossiping. That is,
supervisory negative gossip about employees enhanced the job per- There have also been some efforts examining the consequences of
formance of employees who were recipients of the gossip about gossip for its targets, although these investigations so far have only
their coworker(s) through these recipient employees' reflective appeared in the organization literature. Our review of the broad gos-
learning (Bai et al., 2019). By contrast, Grosser et al. (2010) found sip literature has revealed that impacts on targets in terms of their
that individuals' total gossip activity negatively impacted supervisory attitudes, moods, and behaviors, and their performance evaluations
evaluation of their performance but positively affected peer evalua- have been studied to date. For impacts on attitudes, moods, and behav-
tion of their informal influence. Relatedly, Brady et al. (2017) found iors, Martinescu et al. (2019b) showed that gossip targets experienced
that gossiping was negatively related to task performance as higher levels of self-conscious emotions (e.g., pride for positive gossip
reported by participants themselves and by a nominated work peer. and guilt for negative gossip) and higher levels of other-directed emo-
As such, the existing literature has not formulated a clear picture tions (e.g., liking for positive gossip and anger for negative gossip) as a
regarding the direction of the potential relationship between gossip result of learning about positive or negative performance-related gos-
engagement and job performance. Besides performance, gossip may sip about themselves. Liu et al. (2020) showed that negative gossip
also have career-related consequences: Cooper and Kurland (2002) targets experienced elevated psychological distress and increased
theorized that career advancement can benefit from employees' work–family conflict.
effective utilization of the information exchange function of work- Further, research shows that being the target of negative gossip
place gossip. had detrimental effects on employees' organizational citizenship
Among all studied consequences of gossip for its senders/recipi- behavior (OCB), organization-based self-esteem, and perceived insider
ents, cooperation between senders and recipients is perhaps the most status (Kong, 2018; Wu et al., 2018). Martinescu et al. (2021) found
studied category of consequence. For example, Wu et al. (2019) that decreased enactment of OCB was a result of decreased social
showed that gossip recipients experienced more cooperation with inclusion from being a negative gossip target. Relatedly, Xie et al.
gossip partners as a result of the dyadic gossip interactions. Similarly, (2019) found that the relationship between perceived negative work-
Feinberg et al. (2012) showed that gossip deterred selfishness and place gossip and enacted OCB was weaker when employees were
promoted cooperation among senders, and Feinberg et al. (2014) higher self-monitors. In addition, non-compliance with rules and regu-
showed that gossip led to close cooperation among senders and recip- lations, norm violations, deviance, turnover behavior, and interper-
ients. Weaver and Bosson (2011) found that gossip recipients who sonal conflicts with gossip senders have been theorized as possible
held similarly negative attitudes of others as those who engaged in outcomes for gossip targets (Becker et al., 2020; Gari et al., 2013;
gossip (i.e., senders) experienced increased closeness and feelings of Hodson, 2004).
familiarity toward these gossip senders. In addition, gossip recipients Another emerging theme concerns gossip targets' performance
have been found to contribute more resources to the group as a result evaluations at work. Kulik et al. (2008) theorized that targets of
SUN ET AL. 323
negative gossip can receive negative performance appraisals as a Another type of consequence beyond the triads that emerged
result and may be perceived as having low promotion potential. from our review is “the grapevine effect.” Because the mode of gossip
Empirical evidence supported this proposition: Kong (2018) found communication is often informal, all information that passes through
that when employees perceived themselves as targets of negative is open to change and interpretation. The spread of information may
gossip, they demonstrated lowered in-role performance due to help shape and reshape its meaning as it moves through the organiza-
reduced self-concept appraisal. Similarly, Loughry and Tosi (2008) tion, which may enable cultural and organizational learning
showed that employees' behavioral problems at work and the associ- (Baumeister et al., 2004; Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Furthermore, Fan
ated reduced performance ratings could be a result of being targets of et al. (2020) theorized that confidential gossip in organizations is a dis-
gossip. In addition, Ragins (1989) theorized that being targets of gos- tinctive communicative practice and plays a particular role within the
sip may have a harmful effect on employees' career development, communicative constitution of organizations, such that it may be
especially for female protégées under male supervision, when the gos- regarded as more significant than formal communication. For gossip
sip pertains to concerns or suspicions about the supervisor- that travels across different organizations, van Iterson and Clegg
subordinate relationship. (2008) discovered that gossip can produce inter-organizational power
dynamics that can affect political behavior and inter-organizational
relations, showing empirical evidence for the very existence of the
4.3.3 | Consequences beyond the triads grapevine effect.
Above and beyond the three parties directly involved in a particular

gossip event (i.e., gossip sender, recipient, and target), gossip can also 5 | DI SCU SSION AND F UTU R E R ESEARCH
have impacts on the broader entities or communities, such as groups DI RE C TION S
or organizations. This broader perspective consists of both theoretical
and empirical accounts that describe both positive and negative Over the past 40 years, we have learned a notable amount and con-
impacts. A type of consequence beyond the triads of gossip is that tinue to learn increasingly more, about the pervasiveness, functions,
gossip may impact group functioning. Specifically, group-level coopera- and impacts of workplace gossip. Research scattered across organiza-
tion and ostracism have been found to be a consequence of work- tional and psychological journals has detailed various repercussions
place gossip. For example, Dores Cruz, Beersma, et al. (2019) showed for those who instigate or participate in gossip, identified a multitude
that group gossip offered protection and promoted cooperation of consequences for being the targets of gossip, and is beginning to
among group members. Similarly, Sommerfeld et al. (2007) showed document the potentially broader consequences of gossip on those
that transmitting social information through gossip (especially positive who are not directly involved in the gossip but are members of the
gossip) boosted cooperation levels among individuals. Feinberg et al. groups or organizations where it takes place. In our review, we out-
(2014) showed that gossip facilitated ostracism toward others in the lined these various topics to begin to clarify and provide structure to
group who exhibited non-normative behaviors, and Spoelma and this broad and diverse literature, in order to potentially place the con-
Hetrick (2021) found that through decreasing social loafing, positive struct of gossip as an impactful behavior spurring various work-related
team gossip has a positive indirect effect on team performance. Shank downstream consequences. Besides, we also summarized its anteced-
et al. (2019) also showed that enhanced cooperation could be ents residing across intraindividual, interindividual, and organizational
achieved through enforcing norms through gossip. levels leading up to employees' engagement in gossip and compiled an
Alternatively, group/organizational effectiveness has also been inclusive set of investigated functions for individuals' enactment of
suggested to be negatively affected by workplace gossip (Cooper & gossip in and outside of the workplace, expanding beyond the func-
Kurland, 2002). Kulik et al. (2008) theorized that gossip contributes to tions highlighted in just the psychology literature (Beersma & van
a climate of distrust and has dysfunctional effects on the morale and Kleef, 2012; Dores Cruz, Balliet, et al., 2019).
cohesiveness of the entire organization, such that workplace effi- Our review of the literature conveys that the topic of gossip has
ciency would be negatively impacted by gossip behaviors in the work- attracted a large group of researchers with 48 empirical studies and
group, and Brady et al. (2017) indeed found that negative gossip 47 theoretical discussions published in a wide variety of organizational
behavior was linked to the prevalence of workplace incivility. Addi- and psychological journals. These researchers have employed an
tionally, van Bunderen et al. (2018) theorized that team collective per- impressive variety of measurement instruments, methodologies, and
formance might be negatively affected by gossip that emerges from theories to investigate and ground their study hypotheses. Of note,
power struggles among group members. Separately, Halevy et al. our review detailed 17 unique measurement instruments to assess
(2019) argued that group norms may be enforced due to workplace gossip or gossip-related attributes. These measures include gossip
gossip and that interpersonal relationships may be positively or nega- intentions, motives to gossip, and participation in gossip conversa-
tively influenced depending on individuals' roles in gossip. Indeed, as tions, among others. Our narrative review further uncovered that the
theorized by Powell and Foley (1998), gossip about workplace roman- manner in which gossip has been assessed varies widely across gossip
tic relationships may lead to future objection to romantic workplace scholarship, leaving future scholars with numerous choices to study
relationships among coworkers. the gossip phenomenon. We hope this detailed assortment of existing
324 SUN ET AL.
measures and proven research methodologies will help speed up the rather than social devaluation which in turn may alleviate some of the
rate of scholarship on workplace gossip to make more valued contri- harmful impacts of being gossiped about. Moreover, reflecting on gen-
butions to this already vibrant line of research. After conducting our erosity and benevolence of others who spread positive gossip may
in-depth review, our impressions of the current state of the workplace enhance positive reciprocity in targets of positive gossip.
gossip literature includes taking note of its broad, diverse, yet frag- Finally, we would like to underscore that gossip is often clandes-
mented nature and the enormous promise for future research to help tine in nature (Yovetich & Drigotas, 1999), frequently hidden from the
clarify and uncover remaining portions of this frequent, multiplex, and target and third parties. Due to its hidden nature, it may be fitting for
impactful behavior at work. To facilitate the realization of this prom- future scholars to study employees' perceptions of being gossiped about,
ise, below, we highlight some ways in which future scholars may regardless of whether this is true or not, in addition to witnessing
meaningfully contribute to this growing body of research. actual gossip behavior or participating in gossip events. Some scholars
have already taken this perspective and developed instruments that
measure the prevalence of perceived negative workplace gossip
5.1 | Future research directions (e.g., Beersma & van Kleef, 2012), capturing respondents' perceptions
that their coworkers engage in gossip about them at work. We
5.1.1 | Research designs encourage future scholarship to employ this perceived gossip per-
spective and include it in their theoretical models and research
As we have detailed in the review, scholars have engaged in both designs, as the perception of being gossip about may be much more
deductive and inductive research practices to further our understand- widespread than actual gossip instances would warrant.
ing of workplace gossip. One possible promising design that has not
been used to date is the experience sampling methodology (ESM). ESM,
also known as the daily diary method, involves asking participants to 5.1.2 | Theoretical approaches
report their cognitions, feelings, behaviors, or attributes about their
environment or other people on various occasions over time We outlined that the topic of workplace gossip appears to be well
(Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Researchers can then model changes in positioned among a wide variety of organizational and psychological
these reported variables and aim to predict changes in theoretically theories. Workplace gossip scholars may thus effectively use a diverse
linked constructs that occur within-person, longitudinally. Workplace set of known theoretical lenses to make predictions about and investi-
gossip may effectively be studied using an ESM design, such that one gate workplace gossip relationships. We would like to suggest that
may study how ongoing gossip affects a target over time or leads to workplace gossip may also benefit from the theoretical perspective
temporal changes and fluctuations in their attitudes, moods, or behav- outlined by attribution theory (Lee & Barnes, 2021; Martinko
iors that can be difficult to capture via a static between-person design. et al., 2011), such that recipients' attributions about the senders' gos-
Alternatively, environmental daily variances in supervisory behaviors sip behavior (e.g., an ego enhancement attribution vs. a social integra-
(e.g., delegation, abusive supervision, and feedback seeking) and work- tion/group protection attribution) may influence the spread and
place conditions (e.g., competition among coworkers, incivility, and credibility of the gossip information. Additionally, future scholarship
customer mistreatment) may be studied as antecedent conditions may want to think about gossip as a possible impetus for revenge cog-
using ESM, which are in turn posited to impact the daily prevalence nitions and behaviors, such that gossip may be a starting point for more
and severity of workplace gossip. Furthermore, scholars interested in serious types of conflict and harm in organizations. Finally, a novel
the physiological impacts on workplace behaviors may want to link theoretical direction within gossip research was outlined by van Iter-
daily variances in fatigue, sleep quality, and/or mental resources to son and Clegg (2008) who set out to elevate the impacts of gossip to
daily variances in engaging in workplace gossip. apply to the organizational level, above and beyond the individual level.
Our review also illuminates that extant scholarship until recently In doing so, these scholars studied gossip that one organization
has not studied interventions that might facilitate helpful gossip or, spreads about another organization, as contributing to inter-
alternatively, that might prevent or discourage harmful gossip (for an organizational power dynamics. This line of inquiry holds promise for
exception, see Locklear et al., 2021). Thus, future research can explore understanding gossip at a more macro, inter-organizational, or indus-
what organizations, supervisors, coworkers, and/or targets themselves try level.
might do to mitigate the harmful consequences of negative gossip or Moreover, while not directly examined in the current review, we
to facilitate positive gossip's helpful impacts. Supervisory reprimands encourage future workplace gossip scholarship to separate and for-
for negative gossip and expressed appreciation for uplifting others via mally recognize the difference between positive and negative gossip,
positive gossip may reduce and enhance these forms of gossip, given that while these two categories share a behavior (i.e., gossip), its
respectively. Further, norms around informal office small talk about functions are vastly different (e.g., Brady et al., 2017). For example,
coworkers may influence both positive and negative manifestations of the conditions under which an employee may spread positive gossip
gossip, while positive recognition for propping up coworkers may about a coworker could be grounded in friendship ties or group identi-
facilitate positive instances of gossip. As for targets of gossip, they fication. In contrast, conditions that may facilitate negative gossip
may cognitively reframe being gossiped about as a form of flattery behavior could include negative emotions such as envy, or
SUN ET AL. 325
competition among the workforce for scarce and valued resources. may drive impacts beyond the effects of other functions. Third, our
We encourage future scholarship to adopt a dialectical and balanced review revealed that empirical investigations of the social integration
perspective that gossip messages can be positive and can be function of gossip have been overlooked in the organization literature.
negative, as prompted by vastly different antecedent influences, Therefore, studying whether gossip behavior indeed facilitates coop-
holding different functions, and leading to different consequences eration, cohesion, and employee back-up behaviors at work, and
for senders, recipients, targets, and the group or organizational under which conditions gossip promotes social integration versus pre-
settings in which they take place. Including the valence of the gossip cipitates social segregation in the workplace remain promising ave-
content in empirical studies and theoretical accounts will be a pivotal nues for future workplace gossip scholarship to tease out.
piece of the puzzle to help complete the broad, diverse, and currently
partially unrealized nomological network associated with workplace
gossip. 5.1.4 | Gossip antecedents
To provide a finer grained account for how workplace gossip serving

5.1.3 | Gossip functions different functions emerges from the work context, in Figure 3, we
suggest several antecedents to each function of work gossip across
In Figure 3, we outline an integrative nomological model that incorpo- intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational levels for future
rates a diverse range of promising research avenues regarding further research to consider. First, regarding information exchange-based gos-
understanding of the functions, antecedents, and consequences of sip, employees' characteristics such as their desire and motivation to
gossip. To begin, given the various functions of gossip we identified in learn (e.g., learning goal orientation, trait curiosity, and openness to
both literatures, we encourage future researchers to develop or adapt experience) are likely to drive them to gossip with the aim of acquiring
a scale designated for the measurement of gossip in the workplace information, perhaps especially when their work environment is fea-
context that is able to capture its multiplex functions as revealed in tured with rapidly changing task demands and ample opportunities to
our review. Second, given the multiplex nature of gossip functions, learn (Tannenbaum et al., 2012). Similarly, when employees encounter
future research may want to consider comparing some or all of these more ambiguity in their role expectations and task assignments and/or
different functions simultaneously and examining how different func- when their teams and organizations go through more abrupt changes
tions may interactively impose impacts on gossip triads (senders, (e.g., sudden turnover of colleagues, unexpected entry of new team-
recipients, and targets) and under what conditions some functions mates, and shift from on-site to virtual work due to a pandemic), they
F I G U R E 3 An integrative nomological model proposed for future research on workplace gossip (note: “+” represents a positive relationship,
“ ” represents a negative relationship, and “?” represents a relationship that can manifest either positively or negatively)
326 SUN ET AL.
may engage in more gossip behavior as a sense-making effort propose how workplace gossip serving different functions may
(Mills, 2010). impose impacts on particular groups of audiences, so that future
Second, as for ego enhancement-based gossip, several individual research can consider various promising audience-specific relation-
traits may be closely related to employees' engagement in this type of ships. Note that in Figure 2, we did not distinguish consequences of
gossip: Those who crave enhanced power and status may be more fre- workplace gossip for gossip senders and recipients due to a lack of
quent gossipers to satisfy their needs for acquiring social influence, theoretical consideration and empirical evidence on such distinctions
very likely via negative balanced gossip to appear more powerful, in the extant literature. However, in serving the purpose of guiding
dominant, and as holding higher status (Farley, 2011). Moreover, future research to make these audience-specific distinctions, we out-
employees with desirable levels of task performance may have lower lined sender- and recipient-specific consequences in Figure 3. We
tendencies to gossip as an impression management tactic than those want to note that the relationships between gossip functions and con-
who are underperforming, for whom managing their already fragile rep- sequences we proposed in this figure are not exhaustive and that
utation may be of greater need and yield a greater positive impact many more linkages could materialize, yet we only present relation-
(Xie et al., 2019). Finally, if one's work unit or organization is rife with ships that we deem to be more important to discuss in accordance
politics, employees may be especially prone to impression with our review of the extant gossip literature.
management-driven gossip due to the endorsement of such a norma- First, for information exchange-based and ego enhancement-
tive political climate (Cheng et al., 2020). based gossip, we posit that gossip spread with these objectives in
Third, with regard to gossip that fulfills a social integration func- mind is likely to have notable impacts on gossip senders and recipi-
tion, it may be fruitful for future research to explore how discrete ents, due to their self-centered objectives. For example, gossip with
emotions such as state admiration (e.g., due to the entry of a star per- the function of information exchange can enlarge the knowledge
former into one's team) and state joy (e.g., due to receiving positive pool on task-related and interpersonal matters for those who initi-
recognition from others in the team) may amp up individuals' desire to ate such gossip, placing them at an informational advantage relative
initiate and spread positive gossip as a means to increase the collabo- to non-gossiping peers. Further, gossip with the function of ego
ration and harmony among their teammates (Katz et al., 2017). Fur- enhancement may increase the perceived power and control of gos-
ther, when employees collectively face external threats to their team/ sip senders (Kurland & Pelled, 2000). Both information-exchange
organization such as encounters with competing teams/organizations, and ego-enhancement gossip may also influence how gossip
enduring rude customers and clients, or the failure in getting their senders are evaluated by others (e.g., by gossip recipients and
voice heard by management, groups of employees may engage in gos- supervisors). We posit that gossip senders of information exchange
sip about these experiences to build stronger intra-unit relatedness content will be positively regarded by gossip recipients for
(Dunbar, 2004; Foster, 2004). Finally, positive leadership behaviors such sharing information and giving them “insider status” (Stamper &
as leaders' supportive, ethical, and empowering acts may trigger posi- Masterson, 2002), by keeping them appraised of workplace-relevant
tive gossip among employees which can serve the purpose of enhanc- insights.
ing team dynamics and cooperation (Dores Cruz, Beersma, We further expect that ego-enhancement gossip would result in
et al., 2019). negative appraisals of gossip senders by gossip recipients and super-
In light of social segregation-based gossip, future research may visors alike, as they may not appreciate the gossip sender's attempts
want to explore how discrete emotions such as state envy (e.g., due to to exert undue influence and to enhance their personal reputation
the entry of a better or more highly compensated performer than one- at the gossip targets' expense. As for gossip recipients, we propose
self into the team) and state despise (e.g., due to observations of a that receiving gossip can either increase or decrease one's trust
coworker's unethical acts) induce gossip that aims to ostracize and/or toward gossip senders (depending on the credibility of the gossip
punish others (Feinberg et al., 2014). Moreover, when members in the content), as well as formulate positive/negative appraisals of gossip
work unit or organization violate certain norms and rules, others are senders' intentions (depending on the credentials of and relationship
more likely to adopt gossiping—likely with a negative valence—as a dynamics with gossip senders). Moreover, receiving gossip may nat-
way to enact social sanctioning (Kluver et al., 2014). At last, negative urally impact one's evaluations of gossip targets, again the direction
leadership behaviors such as leaders' differentiated resource allocation of which depends on the particular valence of gossip content
among their subordinates (e.g., allocating resources based on leader- (Martinescu et al., 2021).
member exchange quality) and engagement in abusive acts toward Then, for social integration and social segregation-based gossip,
those subordinates they dislike may spur negative gossip within a sub- we believe these two functions of gossip likely make salient conse-
group of employees toward another subgroup (Grosser et al., 2010). quences for both gossip recipients and gossip targets, due to their
other-oriented nature. Similar to our previous reasoning, these gos-
sip behaviors can also shape gossip recipients' trust toward gossip
5.1.5 | Gossip consequences senders and attributions of their intentions especially regarding
their group-integrating versus group-segregating intentions. Accord-
As an effort to further delineate the consequences of workplace gos- ingly, gossip recipients may then develop evaluations of gossip tar-
sip for its various audiences in organizations, in Figure 3, we also gets in accordance with their evaluations of gossip senders' trust
SUN ET AL. 327
and intentions (Bozoyan & Vogt, 2016). Further, these two types of OR CID
gossip can be particularly influential on the targets of gossip (either Tianjun Sun https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3655-0042
positively or negatively), including their affective experiences at Pauline Schilpzand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4065-9040
work, evaluations of their self-worth and competence, and their per- Yihao Liu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7067-6482
ceived acceptance and ostracism by their team and organization.
Since very few studies have considered the subjective and objec-
RE FE RE NCE S
tive consequences of being the target of gossip, we view all of
Baer, M. D., Bundy, J., Garud, N., & Kim, J. K. (2018). The benefits and bur-
these propositions as fruitful avenues for future research to
dens of organizational reputation for employee well-being: A conser-
consider. vation of resources approach. Personnel Psychology, 71(4), 571–595.
At last, as shown in Figure 3, we propose that the impacts of https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12276
workplace gossip may carry over beyond those involved in the Bai, Y., Wang, J., Chen, T., & Li, F. (2019). Learning from supervisor nega-
tive gossip: The reflective learning process and performance outcome
gossip-triad into the broader team or organizational context. This
of employee receivers. Human Relations, 73(12), 1689–1717. https://
extension of gossip beyond the initial triads indicates the notable doi.org/10.1177/0018726719866250
bottom-up implication of workplace gossip incidents as driving Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended
forces of broad team/organization-level constructs via their effects outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization
Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605
on the triad of senders, targets, and recipients. For instance, it may
054624
be of great interest for future team research to elucidate how gos-
Bashir, M., Shabbir, R., Saleem, S., Abrar, M., Saqib, S., & Gill, S. H. (2020).
sip originating from dyads and triads in a team accumulates, spreads, Job-related and nonjob-related gossips among low-ranked employees
and eventually manifests into collective patterns in the dynamics of in unionized service organization. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 994.
teamwork, such as the emergence of team faultlines; the formation https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00994
Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Gossip as cultural learn-
of team task-related and interpersonal networks connected by those
ing. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.
assuming central roles in the process of sending, receiving, and 1037/1089-2680.8.2.111
being the target of gossip; and the development of team climates Becker, N., Cordeiro, L. S., Poudel, K. C., Sibiya, T. E., Sayer, A. G., &
and organizational cultures of gossiping (Dores Cruz, Beersma, Sibeko, L. N. (2020). Individual, household, and community level
barriers to ART adherence among women in rural Eswatini. PLoS
et al., 2019).
ONE, 15(4), e0231952. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.
0231952
Beersma, B., & van Kleef, G. A. (2011). How the grapevine keeps you in
6 | C O N CL U S I O N line: Gossip increases contributions to the group. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 2(6), 642–649. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550611405073
We are thankful for the opportunity to have outlined the existing lit- Beersma, B., & van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Why people gossip: An empirical
erature on workplace gossip, to summarize its diverse methodological analysis of social motives, antecedents, and consequences. Journal of
approaches and inclusive theoretical perspectives, to document where Applied Social Psychology, 42(11), 2640–2670. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00956.x
the organization literature converges with and diverges from psycho-
Bloor, G., & Dawson, P. (1994). Understanding professional culture in
logical research on gossip, and to identify a series of valuable empirical organizational context. Organization Studies, 15(2), 275–295. https://
and theoretical research avenues future scholars may pursue to fur- doi.org/10.1177/017084069401500205
ther meaningfully extend the gossip literature. In our review, we were Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2013). Intensive longitudinal methods:
An introduction to diary and experience sampling research. Guilford
able to summarize existing research findings within three emerging
Press.
categories of gossip antecedents (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and
Bozoyan, C., & Vogt, S. (2016). The impact of third-party information on
organizational antecedents), four categories of gossip functions (infor- trust: Valence, source, and reliability. PLoS ONE, 11(2), e0149542.
mation exchange, ego enhancement, social integration, and social seg- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149542
regation), and three categories of gossip consequences (consequences Brady, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Liang, L. H. (2017). Moving beyond assump-
tions of deviance: The reconceptualization and measurement of work-
for gossip senders/recipients, for gossip targets, and beyond the tri-
place gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(1), 1–25. https://doi.
ads). We sincerely hope that our integrative nomological model identi- org/10.1037/apl0000164
fying promising research directions will boost scholarship on the Cheng, B., Dong, Y., Zhang, Z., Shaalan, A., Guo, G., & Peng, Y. (2020).
important, pervasive, and impactful behavior of workplace gossip. When targets strike Back: How negative workplace gossip triggers
political acts by employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04648-5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chua, R. Y. J., Ingram, P., & Morris, M. W. (2008). From the head and the
We thank Yue Wang and Yaojia (Rebecca) Chen for their valuable heart: Locating cognition-and affect-based trust in managers' profes-
assistance during the literature search process of this project. sional networks. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 436–452.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.32625956
Cooper, C. D., & Kurland, N. B. (2002). Telecommuting, professional isola-
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT tion, and employee development in public and private organizations.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were cre- Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 511–532. https://doi.org/10.
ated or analyzed in this study. 1002/job.145
328 SUN ET AL.
Darr, A. (1999). Conflict and conflict resolution in a cooperative: The case Frankowski, S., Lupo, A. K., Smith, B. A., Dane'El, M., Ramos, C., &
of the Nir taxi station. Human Relations, 52(3), 279–301. https://doi. Morera, O. F. (2016). Developing and testing a scale to measure need
org/10.1177/001872679905200301 for drama. Personality and Individual Differences, 89, 192–201. https://
di Stefano, G., King, A. A., & Verona, G. (2015). Sanctioning in the wild: doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.009
Rational calculus and retributive instincts in gourmet cuisine. Academy Gari, S., Malungo, J. R., Martin-Hilber, A., Musheke, M., Schindler, C., &
of Management Journal, 58(3), 906–931. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj. Merten, S. (2013). HIV testing and tolerance to gender based violence:
2012.1192 A cross-sectional study in Zambia. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71922. https://
DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (2002). Rumors and stable-cause attribution in doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071922
prediction and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Giardini, F., & Wittek, R. P. (2019). Silence is golden. Six reasons inhibiting
Processes, 88(2), 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02) the spread of third-party gossip. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1120.
00016-X https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01120
Dores Cruz, T. D., Balliet, D., Sleebos, E., Beersma, B., van Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of
Kleef, G. A., & Gallucci, M. (2019). Getting a grip on the grapevine: Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Extension and factor structure of the motives to gossip question- Graso, M., Camps, J., Strah, N., & Brebels, L. (2020). Organizational justice
naire. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1190. https://doi.org/10.3389/ enactment: An agent-focused review and path forward. Journal of
fpsyg.2019.01190 Vocational Behavior, 116, 103296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.
Dores Cruz, T. D., Beersma, B., Dijkstra, M., & Bechtoldt, M. N. (2019). 03.007
The bright and dark side of gossip for cooperation in groups. Grosser, T., Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. J. (2012). Hearing it through
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1374. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019. the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organiza-
01374 tional Dynamics, 41, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2011.
Dores Cruz, T. D., Nieper, A. S., Testori, M., Martinescu, E., & Beersma, B. 12.007
(2021). An integrative definition and framework to study gossip. Grosser, T. J., Lopez-Kidwell, V., & Labianca, G. (2010). A social network
Group & Organization Management, 46(2), 252–285. https://doi.org/ analysis of positive and negative gossip in organizational life. Group &
10.1177/1059601121992887 Organization Management, 35(2), 177–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. (2002). Social undermining in the 1059601109360391
workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. Halevy, N., Halali, E., & Zlatev, J. J. (2019). Brokerage and brokering: An
Dunbar, R. I. (2004). Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General integrative review and organizing framework for third party influence.
Psychology, 8(2), 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.
2.100 5465/annals.2017.0024
Eder, D., & Enke, J. L. (1991). The structure of gossip: Opportunities Hallen, B. L., & Pahnke, E. C. (2016). When do entrepreneurs accurately
and constraints on collective expression among adolescents. evaluate venture capital firms' track records? A bounded rationality
American Sociological Review, 56, 494–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/ perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1535–1560.
2096270 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0316
Ellwardt, L., Labianca, G. J., & Wittek, R. (2012). Who are the objects of Hartung, F. M., Krohn, C., & Pirschtat, M. (2019). Better than its reputa-
positive and negative gossip at work?: A social network perspective on tion? Gossip and the reasons why we and individuals with “dark” per-
workplace gossip. Social Networks, 34(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10. sonalities talk about others. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1162. https://
1016/j.socnet.2011.11.003 doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01162
Ellwardt, L., Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (2012). Talking about the boss: Hartung, F. M., & Renner, B. (2013). Social curiosity and gossip: Related
Effects of generalized and interpersonal trust on workplace gossip. but different drives of social functioning. PLoS ONE, 8(7), e69996.
Group & Organization Management, 37(4), 521–549. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069996
10.1177/1059601112450607 Hodson, R. (2004). Organizational trustworthiness: Findings from the pop-
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., & Walter, J. (2015). Deeds that help and words ulation of organizational ethnographies. Organization Science, 15(4),
that hurt: Helping and gossip as moderators of the relationship 432–445. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0077
between leader–member exchange and advice network centrality. Per- Jaeger, M. E., Anthony, S., & Rosnow, R. L. (1980). Who hears what from
sonnel Psychology, 68(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps. whom and with what effect: A study of rumor. Personality and Social
12075 Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 473–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Fan, Z., Grey, C., & Karreman, D. (2020). Confidential gossip and organiza- 014616728063024
tion studies. Organization Studies. Advance Online Publication, 42, Karreman, D., & Alvesson, M. (2001). Making newsmakers: Conversational
1651–1664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620954016 identity at work. Organization Studies, 22(1), 59–89. https://doi.org/
Farley, S. D. (2011). Is gossip power? The inverse relationships between 10.1177/017084060102200103
gossip, power, and likability. European Journal of Social Psychology, Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020).
41(5), 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.821 The five-dimensional curiosity scale revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Schultz, M. (2014). Gossip and ostracism pro- while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Indi-
mote cooperation in groups. Psychological Science, 25(3), 656–664. vidual Differences, 157, 109836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613510184 109836
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., Stellar, J., & Keltner, D. (2012). The virtues of gos- Katz, B. A., Lustig, N., Assis, Y., & Yovel, I. (2017). Measuring regulation in
sip: Reputational information sharing as prosocial behavior. Journal of the here and now: The development and validation of the state emo-
Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1015–1030. https://doi.org/ tion regulation inventory (SERI). Psychological Assessment, 29(10),
10.1037/a0026650 1235–1248. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000420
Fine, G. A., & Rosnow, R. L. (1978). Gossip, gossipers, gossiping. Personality Kluver, J., Frazier, R., & Haidt, J. (2014). Behavioral ethics for Homo eco-
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(1), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/ nomicus, Homo heuristicus, and Homo duplex. Organizational Behavior
014616727800400135 and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.
Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future 1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.004
directions. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 78–99. https://doi.org/ Kniffin, K. M., & Wilson, D. S. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on work-
10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.78 place gossip: Why and how gossip can serve groups. Group &
SUN ET AL. 329
Organization Management, 35(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 153, 89–102.
1059601109360390 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.05.006
Komiya, A., Oishi, S., & Lee, M. (2016). The rural–urban difference in inter- Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2019b). Self-evaluative and
personal regret. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(4), 513– other-directed emotional and behavioral responses to gossip about
525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216636623 the self. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2603. https://doi.org/10.3389/
Kong, M. (2018). Effect of perceived negative workplace gossip on fpsyg.2018.02603
employees' behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1112. https://doi.org/ Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory
10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01112 in the organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal
Kulik, C. T., Bainbridge, H. T., & Cregan, C. (2008). Known by the company of Organizational Behavior, 32(1), 144–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/
we keep: Stigma-by-association effects in the workplace. Academy of job.690
Management Review, 33(1), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr. Massar, K., Buunk, A. P., & Rempt, S. (2012). Age differences in women's
2008.27752765 tendency to gossip are mediated by their mate value. Personality and
Kuo, C. C., Chang, K., Quinton, S., Lu, C. Y., & Lee, I. (2015). Gossip in the Individual Differences, 52(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
workplace and the implications for HR management: A study of gossip 2011.09.013
and its relationship to employee cynicism. The International Journal of McAndrew, F. T. (2017). How “the gossip” became a woman and how
Human Resource Management, 26(18), 2288–2307. https://doi.org/10. “gossip” became her weapon of choice. In M. L. Fisher (Ed.), The
1080/09585192.2014.985329 Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 191–205). Oxford Uni-
Kurland, N. B., & Pelled, L. H. (2000). Passing the word: Toward a model of versity Press.
gossip and power in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, McAndrew, F. T., Bell, E. K., & Garcia, C. M. (2007). Who do we tell and
25(2), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.2307/259023 whom do we tell on? Gossip as a strategy for status enhancement 1.
Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and percep- Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1562–1577. https://doi.
tions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00227.x
third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67. McAndrew, F. T., & Milenkovic, M. A. (2002). Of tabloids and family
Lee, S. H., & Barnes, C. M. (2021). An attributional process model of work- secrets: The evolutionary psychology of gossip 1. Journal of Applied
place gossip. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(2), 300–316. https:// Social Psychology, 32(5), 1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000504 1816.2002.tb00256.x
Li, X., McAllister, D. J., Ilies, R., & Gloor, J. L. (2019). Schadenfreude: A Michelson, G., van Iterson, A., & Waddington, K. (2010). Gossip in
counternormative observer response to workplace mistreatment. organizations: Contexts, consequences, and controversies. Group &
Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 360–376. https://doi.org/10. Organization Management, 35(4), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/
5465/amr.2016.0134 1059601109360389
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2005). Individual differences in attitudes Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundations for a theory of
towards gossip. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(4), 963–980. embedded organizational gossip. Group & Organization Management,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.003 35(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109360392
Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curi- Mitchell, M. S., & Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive supervision and work-
osity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1448–1459. https:// place deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.04.021 beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1159–1168. https://doi.
Liu, T., Wu, L., Yang, Y., & Jia, Y. (2020). Work-to-family spillover effects org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
of workplace negative gossip: A mediated moderation model. Myers, P. (2002). Customers, boardrooms and gossip: Theme
Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1612. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020. repetition and metapatterns in the texture of organizing. Human
01612 Relations, 55(6), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267025
Locklear, L. R., Taylor, S. G., & Ambrose, M. L. (2021). How a gratitude 56003
intervention influences workplace mistreatment: A multiple mediation Nevo, O., Nevo, B., & Derech-Zehavi, A. (1994). The tendency of gossip as
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1314–1331. https://doi. a psychological disposition: Constructing a measure and validating it.
org/10.1037/apl0000825 In R. F. Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 180–189).
Loughry, M. L., & Tosi, H. L. (2008). Performance implications of peer mon- University Press of Kansas.
itoring. Organization Science, 19(6), 876–890. https://doi.org/10. Noon, M., & Delbridge, R. (1993). News from behind my hand: Gossip in
1287/orsc.1080.0356 organizations. Organization Studies, 14(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.
Lyons, M. T., & Hughes, S. (2015). Malicious mouths? The dark triad and 1177/017084069301400103
motivations for gossip. Personality and Individual Differences, 78, 1–4. Paetzold, R. L., Dipboye, R. L., & Elsbach, K. D. (2008). A new look at stig-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.009 matization in and of organizations. Academy of Management Review,
Mano, R., & Gabriel, Y. (2006). Workplace romances in cold and hot 33(1), 186–193. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27752576
organizational climates: The experience of Israel and Taiwan. Peters, K., & Fonseca, M. A. (2020). Truth, lies, and gossip. Psychological
Human Relations, 59(1), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872670 Science. Advance online publication, 31, 702–714. https://doi.org/10.
6062739 1177/0956797620916708
Martinescu, E., Jansen, W., & Beersma, B. (2021). Negative gossip Peters, K., Jetten, J., Radova, D., & Austin, K. (2017). Gossiping about devi-
decreases Targets' organizational citizenship behavior by decreasing ance: Evidence that deviance spurs the gossip that builds bonds. Psy-
social inclusion. A multi-method approach. Group & Organization chological Science, 28(11), 1610–1619. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Management, 46, 463–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011209 0956797617716918
86876 Pierce, C. A., Byrne, D., & Aguinis, H. (1996). Attraction in organizations: A
Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2014). Tell me the gossip: The model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1),
self-evaluative function of receiving gossip about others. Personality 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17:1%3C5::
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1668–1680. https://doi.org/10. AID-JOB734%3E3.0.CO;2-E
1177/0146167214554916 Powell, G. N., & Foley, S. (1998). Something to talk about: Romantic rela-
Martinescu, E., Janssen, O., & Nijstad, B. A. (2019a). Gossip as a resource: tionships in organizational settings. Journal of Management, 24(3),
How and why power relationships shape gossip behavior. 421–448.
330 SUN ET AL.
Quinn, R. E. (1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and Stamper, C. L., & Masterson, S. S. (2002). Insider or outsider? How
management of romantic relationships in organizations. Adminis- employee perceptions of insider status affect their work behavior.
trative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/ Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(8), 875–894. https://doi.org/10.
2391744 1002/job.175
Ragins, B. R. (1989). Barriers to mentoring: The female manager's dilemma. Szamado, S., Szalai, F., & Scheuring, I. (2016). Deception undermines the
Human Relations, 42(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/ stability of cooperation in games of indirect reciprocity. PLoS ONE,
001872678904200101 11(1), e0147623. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147623
Robbins, M. L., & Karan, A. (2020). Who gossips and how in everyday life? Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are
Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(2), 185–195. https:// changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial
doi.org/10.1177/1948550619837000 and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
Romera, E. M., Herrera-Lo pez, M., Casas, J. A., Ortega Ruiz, R., & del 1754-9434.2011.01396.x
Rey, R. (2018). How much do adolescents cybergossip? Scale develop- Traag, V. A., van Dooren, P., & de Leenheer, P. (2013). Dynamical models
ment and validation in Spain and Colombia. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, explaining social balance and evolution of cooperation. PLoS ONE, 8(4),
126. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00126 e60063. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060063
Rosnow, R. L. (2001). Rumor and gossip in interpersonal interaction and van Bunderen, L., Greer, L. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). When inter-
beyond: A social exchange perspective. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behav- team conflict spirals into intrateam power struggles: The pivotal role
ing badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 203– of team power structures. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3),
232). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 1100–1130. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0182
10365-008 van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2009). Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at
Rosnow, R. L., & Fine, G. A. (1976). Rumor and gossip: The social psychology word-of-mouth as a recruitment source. Journal of Applied Psychology,
of hearsay. Elsevier. 94(2), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014066
Rosnow, R. L., & Foster, E. K. (2005). Rumor and gossip research. Psycho- van Iterson, A., & Clegg, S. R. (2008). The politics of gossip and denial in
logical Science Agenda, 19(4), 1–2. interorganizational relations. Human Relations, 61(8), 1117–1137.
Rudnicki, K., de Backer, C. J., & Declerck, C. (2019). The effects of celebrity https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708094862
gossip on trust are moderated by prosociality of the gossipers. Person- Varty, C. T., Barclay, L. J., & Brady, D. L. (2020). Beyond adherence to jus-
ality and Individual Differences, 143, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tice rules: How and when manager gender contributes to diminished
paid.2019.02.010 legitimacy in the aftermath of unfair situations. Journal of Organiza-
Schein, S. (1994). Used and abused: Gossip in medieval society. In R. F. tional Behavior. Advance Online Publication, 42, 767–784. https://doi.
Goodman & A. Ben-Ze'ev (Eds.), Good gossip (pp. 139–153). University org/10.1002/job.2482
Press of Kansas. Vitukevich, N. (2019). Office gossip runs rampant … and that may not be
Severance, L., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Gelfand, M. J., Lyons, S., Nowak, A., such a bad thing. Office Pulse. Retrieved from https://officepulse.
Borkowski, W., Soomro, N., Soomro, N., Rafaeli, A., Treister, D. E., captivate.com/office-gossip-runs-rampant
Lin, C.-C., & Yamaguchi, S. (2013). The psychological structure of Waddington, K. (2005). Using diaries to explore the characteristics of
aggression across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), work-related gossip: Methodological considerations from exploratory
835–865. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1873 multimethod research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Shani, G., & Westphal, J. D. (2016). Persona non grata? Determinants and Psychology, 78(2), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905
consequences of social distancing from journalists who engage in neg- X40817
ative coverage of firm leadership. Academy of Management Journal, Watson, D. C. (2011). Gossip and the self. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
59(1), 302–329. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.1162 ogy, 41(7), 1818–1833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.
Shank, D. B., Kashima, Y., Peters, K., Li, Y., Robins, G., & Kirley, M. (2019). 00772.x
Norm talk and human cooperation: Can we talk ourselves into cooper- Weaver, J. R., & Bosson, J. K. (2011). I feel like I know you: Sharing nega-
ation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 99–123. tive attitudes of others promotes feelings of familiarity. Personality and
https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000163 Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Skitka, L. J. (2009). Exploring the “lost and found” of justice theory and 0146167211398364
research. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10. Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip.
1007/s11211-009-0089-0 Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance 1089-2680.8.2.122
trading in Lloyd's of London: Balancing conflicting-yet-complementary Westphal, J. D., & Khanna, P. (2003). Keeping directors in line: Social dis-
logics in practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970. tancing as a control mechanism in the corporate elite. Administrative
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0638 Science Quarterly, 48(3), 361–398. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556678
Smit, B. W., & Montag-Smit, T. (2019). The pay transparency dilemma: Wittek, R., & Wielers, R. (1998). Gossip in organizations. Computational &
Development and validation of the pay information exchange prefer- Mathematical Organization Theory, 4(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.
ences scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(4), 537–558. https:// 1023/A:1009636325582
doi.org/10.1037/apl0000355 Wu, J., Balliet, D., Kou, Y., & van Lange, P. A. (2019). Gossip in the dictator
Smith, E. R. (2014). Evil acts and malicious gossip: A multiagent model of and ultimatum games: Its immediate and downstream consequences
the effects of gossip in socially distributed person perception. Person- for cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 651. https://doi.org/10.
ality and Social Psychology Review, 18(4), 311–325. https://doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2019.00651
1177/1088868314530515 Wu, J., Balliet, D., & van Lange, P. A. (2015). When does gossip promote
Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H. J., Semmann, D., & Milinski, M. (2007). generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future. Social
Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of indirect rec- Psychological and Personality Science, 6(8), 923–930. https://doi.org/
iprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(44) 10.1177/1948550615595272
17435–17440. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704598104 Wu, L. Z., Birtch, T. A., Chiang, F. F., & Zhang, H. (2018). Perceptions of
Spoelma, T. M., & Hetrick, A. L. (2021). More than idle talk: Examining the negative workplace gossip: A self-consistency theory framework. Jour-
effects of positive and negative team gossip. Journal of Organizational nal of Management, 44(5), 1873–1898. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Behavior, 42, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2522 0149206316632057
SUN ET AL. 331
Xie, J., Huang, Q., Wang, H., & Shen, M. (2019). Coping with negative
workplace gossip: The joint roles of self-monitoring and impression Chain Management. Pauline received her PhD in Management
management tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 151,
from the University of Florida. Her primary research areas include
109482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.025
Yao, B., Scott, G. G., McAleer, P., O'Donnell, P. J., & Sereno, S. C. (2014). employee proactivity, leadership, employee presenteeism, and
Familiarity with interest breeds gossip: Contributions of emotion, workplace incivility.
expectation, and reputation. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e104916. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104916 Dr. Yihao Liu is an assistant professor of the School of Labor and
Yovetich, N. A., & Drigotas, S. M. (1999). Secret transmission: A relative Employment Relations and Department of Psychology at the Uni-
intimacy hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Yihao received his PhD in
1135–1146. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512007
Management from the University of Florida. His primary research
interests include occupational stress and well-being, teams and
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES groups, and newcomer socialization and adjustment.
Dr. Tianjun Sun is an assistant professor of psychological sciences

at the Kansas State University. Tianjun obtained her PhD in Indus- How to cite this article: Sun, T., Schilpzand, P., & Liu, Y.
trial-Organizational Psychology from the University of Illinois (2023). Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its
Urbana-Champaign. Her research primarily focuses on the study antecedents, functions, and consequences. Journal of
of individual differences, psychological measurement, and using Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.
quantitative methodology and advanced technology as tools to 1002/job.2653
improve personnel selection and solve organizational problems.
Dr. Pauline Schilpzand is an associate professor of Management

in the College of Business at Oregon State University, the School
Head for Management, Strategy and Entrepreneurship, and Suppl
332 SUN ET AL.
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1 A summary of empirical research on antecedents of workplace gossip
Field Study Perspective Intrapersonal Interpersonal Organizational Antecedents

Org Bashir et al. (2020) Sender x x Cynicism; workplace incivility;
psychological contract violation
Ellwardt, Wittek, and Sender x x Low trust in management; nonfriendly
Wielers (2012) relationships; infrequent contact with
managers
Grosser et al. (2010) Sender x Expressive friendship ties; instrumental
workflow ties; structural embeddedness
in friendship network
Kniffin and Wilson Sender x Organizational rewards
(2010)
Locklear et al. (2021) Sender x Gratitude; self-control resources
Martinescu et al. (2019a) Sender x x Hierarchical power relationships; motives
of seeking information, influence, and
support;
Mills (2010) Sender x Organizational change
Smit and Montag-Smit Sender x Preferences on pay information seeking
(2019) and sharing
Wu et al. (2018) Target x Negative affectivity
Psych Dores Cruz, Beersma, Recipient x Tendency to gossip; group protection
et al. (2019) motivations
Feinberg et al. (2012) Sender x Negative affect; prosocial motivation
Hartung et al. (2019) Sender x Dark triad traits
Hartung and Renner Sender x Extraversion; neuroticism
(2013)
Litman and Pezzo (2005) Sender x Social and moral attitudes toward gossip;
curiosity
Lyons and Hughes Sender x Dark triad traits
(2015)
Massar et al. (2012) Sender x Mate value; age
McAndrew et al. (2007) Sender x Gender
Peters et al. (2017) Sender, x Positive or negative deviance by others
recipient
Robbins and Karan Sender x Gender; age; extraversion
(2020)
Watson (2011) Sender x Self-monitoring; self-efficacy; locus of
control; self-concept clarity
Yao et al. (2014) Sender x x Emotion; expectation; reputation; target
familiarity; story interest
SUN ET AL. 333
TABLE A2 A summary of empirical research on functions of workplace gossip
Information Ego Social Social

Field Study Perspective exchange enhancement integration segregation Functions
Org Bashir et al. (2020) Sender x x Releasing anger; punishing
Loughry and Tosi Sender x Indirect peer monitoring
(2008)
Mills (2010) Sender x Sensemaking; social exchange
Smit and Montag- Sender x Information collecting; social
Smit (2019) comparison
Waddington (2005) Sender x Expressing and communicating
emotion
Psych Baumeister et al. Sender, x Information gathering; cultural
(2004) recipient learning
Beersma and van Recipient x Constraining self-serving behaviors
Kleef (2011) that harm the group
Beersma and van Sender, x x x Negative influence; information
Kleef (2012) recipient gathering and validation; social
enjoyment; group protection
Dores Cruz, Balliet, Sender x x x Social enjoyment; information
et al. (2019) gathering and validation; negative
influence; group protection;
emotion venting
Dores Cruz, Recipient x Protecting groups against norm
Beersma, et al. violators
(2019)
Feinberg et al. Sender, x Information spreading
(2014) recipient
Feinberg et al. Sender x x Reputational information sharing;
(2012) group protection
Hartung et al. Sender x x x Information validation; information
(2019) gathering; relationship building;
protection; social enjoyment;
negative influence
Hartung and Renner Sender, x x x Information; friendship/intimacy;
(2013) recipient influence; entertainment
Lyons and Hughes Sender x x x Information gathering; negative
(2015) influence; social enjoyment;
group protection
Martinescu et al. Recipient x Self-evaluation
(2014)
McAndrew and Sender, x Status enhancement
Milenkovic (2002) recipient
McAndrew et al. Sender, x Status enhancement
(2007) recipient
Peters and Fonseca Sender x Shaping reputation
(2020)
Shank et al. (2019) Sender, x Make the injunctive norm salient;
recipient reminder of norm and reputation
Sommerfeld et al. Sender x x Transmitting social information;
(2007) managing reputation
Watson (2011) Sender x x x Information sharing; influence;
entertainment; friendship
334 SUN ET AL.
TABLE A3 A summary of empirical research on consequences of workplace gossip
Sender/ Beyond the

Field Study Perspective recipient Target triad Consequences
Org Bai et al. (2019) Sender, x Reflective learning; job performance
recipient
Brady et al. (2017) Sender x x Uncertainty; emotion validation; self-esteem;
perceived coworker incivility
Erdogan et al. (2015) Sender x Advice network centrality
Grosser et al. (2010) Sender x Supervisor's evaluation of performance; peer's
evaluation of informal influence
Kong (2018) Target x Adverse in-role behavior; organizational
citizenship behavior; organizational-based
self-esteem; perceived insider status
Liu et al. (2020) Target x Psychological distress; work–family conflict
Loughry and Tosi (2008) Senders x x Behavior problems; job performance
Martinescu et al. (2021) Target x Social exclusion, decreased organizational
citizenship behavior
Martinescu et al. (2019b) Target x Self-evaluative and other-directed emotions
Spoelma and Hetrick Sender, x x Social loafing; team performance drop
(2021) recipient
van Iterson and Clegg Sender, x Interorganizational power dynamics
(2008) recipient
Waddington (2005) Sender x Stress relief; guilt
Wu et al. (2018) Target x Citizenship behavior; organization-based self-
esteem
Xie et al. (2019) Target x Organizational citizenship behavior
Psych Beersma and van Kleef Recipient x Resource contribution to the group
(2011)
Dores Cruz, Beersma, Recipient x x Group protection and cooperation; emotion
et al. (2019) release; work effort in the short run; long-
term cooperative intentions
Feinberg et al. (2014) Sender, x x Ostracism; cooperation
recipient
Feinberg et al. (2012) Sender x Negative affect; deterrence of selfishness;
cooperation
Martinescu et al. (2014) Recipient x Self-improvement value; self-promotion value;
self-protection concerns; self-conscious
emotions (i.e., pride, fear)
Romera et al. (2018) Sender, x Cyberbullying (from negative gossip), positive
recipient virtual relationship (from positive gossip),
fewer risky cyberbehaviors (from positive
gossip)
Rudnicki et al. (2019) Sender x Trust
Shank et al. (2019) Sender, x x Cooperation
recipient
Sommerfeld et al. (2007) Sender, x x Cooperation
recipient
Weaver and Bosson Recipient x Closeness, feeling of similarity
(2011)
Wu et al. (2019) Recipient x Cooperation

J Organ Behavior - 2022 - Sun - Workplace Gossip An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents Functions and Consequences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Organ Behavior - 2022 - Sun - Workplace Gossip An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents Functions and Consequences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 21 January 2020 Revised: 2 May 2022 Accepted: 15 June 2022

Workplace gossip: An integrative review of its antecedents,

Tianjun Sun1 | Pauline Schilpzand2 | Yihao Liu3,4

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N reputation. In the organizational realm, gossip is frequently viewed as

TABLE 1 Comparison of workplace gossip and similar workplace constructs

Workplace An employee (i.e., the sender) People Few Positive or

as 2020.2 Strategic management journal

To gain an understanding of the development of gossip research

F I G U R E 1 Time trends for the published

4.2.2 | Ego enhancement functions 4.2.3 | Social integration functions

4.2.4 | Social segregation functions 4.3 | Consequences of gossip

Above and beyond the three parties directly involved in a particular

To provide a finer grained account for how workplace gossip serving

Dr. Tianjun Sun is an assistant professor of psychological sciences

Dr. Pauline Schilpzand is an associate professor of Management

TABLE A1 A summary of empirical research on antecedents of workplace gossip

Field Study Perspective Intrapersonal Interpersonal Organizational Antecedents

TABLE A2 A summary of empirical research on functions of workplace gossip

Information Ego Social Social

TABLE A3 A summary of empirical research on consequences of workplace gossip

Sender/ Beyond the

You might also like