௠ Academy of Management Journal 2012, Vol. 55, No. 3, 643–666. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804

A SOCIAL CONTEXT MODEL OF AND SOCIAL UNDERMINING

MICHELLE K. DUFFY University of Minnesota

KRISTIN L. SCOTT Clemson University

JASON D. SHAW University of Minnesota

BENNETT J. TEPPER Georgia State University

KARL AQUINO University of British Columbia

We integrate moral disengagement, social identification, and social norms theories to develop, test, and replicate a model that explains how and when envy is associated with social undermining. In Study 1, a two-wave study of hospital employees, results support the prediction that the mediated effect of envy on social undermining behavior through moral disengagement is stronger when employees have low social identifica- tion with coworkers. Study 2, a four-wave, multilevel study of student teams, shows that the indirect effect of envy on social undermining through moral disengagement is stronger in teams with low team identification and high team undermining norms.

Employees have numerous opportunities to ob- (Vidaillet, 2006) and is an unpleasant, painful state serve and contemplate how the benefits and advan- (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2009). Consequently, in- tages they enjoy at work compare with those of dividuals should be highly motivated to reduce their colleagues. Whether these opportunities pres- feelings of envy. The psychological literature ent themselves formally (e.g., through performance shows that when they are unsuccessful at doing so, appraisals) or informally (e.g., through friendship and feelings of envy persist, envy can lead to a networks), common experience and empirical re- variety of deleterious outcomes, including search suggest that favorable social comparison in- schadenfreude, aggression, and even crime (see formation gives people pleasure, but unfavorable Smith and Kim [2007] for a review). Indeed, envy is information can focus their attention on what they often argued to be a “call to action” to engage in lack relative to their colleagues (Hogg, 2000). In the interpersonal harm doing, especially actions that latter case, feelings of envy—the emotion that sur- “reduce or, better yet, fully remove the envied per- faces when one lacks and desires others’ superior son’s advantage” (Smith & Kim, 2007: 53). If this qualities, achievements, or possessions (Parrott & argument is correct, then envy should be a reliable Smith, 1993)—may arise. predictor of social undermining, or behavior in- Envy of others at work (referred to here as tended to hinder the ability of others to establish “envy”) may have positive consequences if, for ex- and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, ample, it motivates a person to increase perfor- work-related successes, and favorable mance or attempt self-improvement (Duffy, Shaw, (Duffy, Ganster, & Pagon, 2002). Social undermin- & Schaubroeck, 2008; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004). ing behavior differs from other forms of antisocial But envy also has a dark side. Envy poses threatens behavior at the conceptual level because it com- the core of an individual’s professional identity prises only intentional behavior and behavior de- signed to weaken its target gradually or by degrees (Duffy, Ganster, Shaw, Johnson, & Pagon, 2006). Editor’s note: The manuscript for this article was ac- The study of envy and its work-related conse- cepted for publication during the term of AMJ’s former quences has been surprisingly neglected, even editor-in-chief, R. Duane Ireland. though work environments include a surfeit of po-

643 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 644 Academy of Management Journal June tential envy-inducing situations (Duffy et al., 2008). strongly motivated to do so. For example, to thrive Indeed, research linking envy to harmful behaviors in work contexts, individuals must develop social at work, such as undermining, is rather sparse, and capital, make high-quality connections with capa- the relationship has not been firmly established ble others, and maintain some positive standing in (e.g., Cohen-Charash, 2009; Cohen-Charash & Muel- the work environment (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; ler, 2007; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2006). We aim to Exline & Zell, 2008). Responding to envy with un- advance the theoretical and empirical literature in dermining or other forms of aggression can place two ways. these objectives at risk. Consequently, we maintain First, the literature lacks a guiding theoretical that even when they have strong feelings of envy, perspective on the process through which envy members do not always respond with relates to social undermining. A basic assumption social undermining. The possibility that social and of our model is that envy is an undesirable state organizational forces are likely to inhibit causing that most employees want to avoid. We contend harm to others, even when the desire to do so is that one way employees can attempt to manage strong, may explain why some studies have shown envy is to thwart the success of their colleagues inconsistent relationships between measures of through social undermining, thereby reducing the envy and antisocial behavior (Cohen- gap between the outcomes that might lead to dis- Charash, 2009). Indeed, it may be that a common advantageous social comparisons. We do not claim response to feeling envious of others is for an indi- that this is the only path envious employees can vidual to “suffer in silence,” resigned to accepting pursue in response to envy, but it is the one we that others have things that he or she desires but focus on here, because it requires employees to cannot have. overcome personal and social barriers to harming Thus, to address the question of when envy will others in workplace settings. actually result in social undermining, we introduce What theoretical mechanism explains why em- two features of social context: social identification ployees may choose to act on their envious feelings with one’s colleagues and undermining norms. In with social undermining behavior? We offer one the first of two studies, we tested whether social theoretical explanation by proposing that the link identification with colleagues can either facilitate between envy and social undermining is mediated or inhibit the emergence of moral disengagement by a disengagement of the self-regulatory mecha- cognitions, a first-stage moderation effect in our nisms that would otherwise constrain such behav- model. Prior research has focused largely on the ior. These cognitive maneuvers are referred to notion that social identification (e.g., closeness, broadly as “moral disengagement” (Bandura, 1986, similarity) and envy are positively related because 1991). We theorize that envy increases moral dis- identification creates “the expectation that the engagement and allows envious employees to over- other ought to experience similar outcomes” come the cognitive barriers, or self-sanctions, that (Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004: 34; see also Smith and most people abide by, breaking them “free of a Kim [2007] for a review). Here, we propose a novel, prevailing submissive frame of mind” (Smith & moderating role for social identification. Drawing Kim, 2007: 53). This part of our model allows us to on theories of moral exclusion (Opotow, 1990, answer the question of why envy might motivate 1995) and self-construal (Bandura, 1986), we argue social undermining. Thus, we extend current that enviers will morally disengage only when they thinking on envy by proposing moral disengage- feel less psychologically connected to others in ment as the mechanism through which envy leads their work environment (i.e., they experience low to harmful interpersonal behaviors. Our approach social identification). In contrast, high social iden- also extends previous theories of envy by suggest- tification makes it more difficult to convert envy ing that envy resulting from making multiple rather into cognitive rationalizations for harm-doing. than specific (or episodic) social comparisons can Thus, although prior research has focused on the influence the willingness to undermine coworkers role of social identification in generating envy, we who may or may not be the objects of envy. The investigate how social identification shapes re- reason is that envy motivates moral disengagement, sponses to envy by defusing the tendency to mor- which disables self-sanctions against harm doing. ally disengage. In our second study, we incorporate By advancing this argument, we are suggesting a theory concerning behavioral or etic norms to sug- potential spillover effect of envy that leads a person gest that once moral disengagement has occurred, to undermine others in general. an envious employee may nevertheless eschew so- Second, in organizational settings, often strong cial undermining. Following previous researchers social and institutional pressures inhibit employ- (e.g., Bamberger & Biron, 2007; Tepper, Henle, ees from undermining others, even if they are Lambert, Giacalone, & Duffy, 2008), we hypothe- 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 645 size that weak norms for undermining in the social uations, work and otherwise) and episodic envy (an context can serve as a second defusing mechanism emotional reaction to a specific event). In describ- that weakens the relationship between moral dis- ing workplace envy, Vecchio (2005) argued that engagement and social undermining behavior, a individuals in work situations recognize differ- second-stage moderation effect in our model. ences in social standing, performance, and treat- Taken together, our model suggests that two condi- ment with multiple comparators concurrently and tions are needed for envy to lead to social under- that these comparisons may not be to a specific mining: the employee who feels envy must not transient episode, but rather to an existing state of strongly identify with his or her coworkers, and multiple unflattering comparisons. This view is norms discouraging undermining must be weak. also in line with the views of Wood, who argued Our theoretical model is presented in Figure 1. that social comparison processes include “thinking We test the first part of our moderated-mediation about one or more other people in relation to the theory with data from employees of a university self” (1996: 520). When making comparisons about hospital. We then develop an integrative moderat- career advancement, for example, Wood (1996) ed-mediation model involving both social context stated that individuals evaluate their standing with moderators and report tests of the full model using multiple coworkers before making negative or pos- a sample of student teams. We conclude by discuss- itive judgments. In the case of workplace envy, an ing the implications of the results for theory and individual may lack and desire certain colleagues’ research. superior achievements (e.g., their superior pattern of academic publishing), while concurrently envy- ing the level of recognition still others have re- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ceived for their accomplishments (e.g., a colleague Conceptualizing Envy of Others at Work who holds a lucrative endowed chair). In such a case, envy is high because of the desired patterns of The experience of envy has been conceptualized successes of multiple others in the environment. in three related ways: as situational—that is, as a general envy of others in an environment, typically a work context or team, involving multiple refer- Envy and Social Undermining ents or comparators (e.g., Duffy & Shaw, 2000; ); as dispositional (e.g., Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, & Envy is an unpleasant emotion (Smith & Kim, Kim, 1999); and as specific and episodic, involving 2007). The perception that one lacks and desires a specific individual as a referent (e.g., Cohen-Cha- another’s superior qualities, achievements, or pos- rash, 2009). In this study, we take the first view: sessions is a significant threat to self-esteem. that individuals can and do make invidious social Envy is so uncomfortable, in fact, that it has been comparisons with others in their immediate envi- linked to the activation of neural circuitry that is ronment (Vecchio, 1995, 2005). Conceptually, envy responsible for physical pain (see Lieberman & of others in a work context is distinct from dispo- Eisenberger, 2009). An individual can alleviate sitional envy (a tendency generalized across all sit- the unpleasantness associated with envy by ag-

FIGURE 1 Proposed Theoretical Modela

a Relationships designated with solid lines were tested in Study 1. The full model was tested in Study 2. 646 Academy of Management Journal June grandizing the self at the expense of targeted dura, 1986; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pas- individuals (Wert & Salovey, 2004). As an instru- torelli, 1996) and others (e.g., Detert et al., 2008), mental form of aggression, social undermining we conceptualize moral disengagement as a single behaviors (e.g., belittling, gossiping, withholding overarching construct. Taken together, these di- information, giving someone “the silent treat- mensions represent an overall cognitive orientation ment”) are powerful ways to bolster oneself at that is the additive sum of the conceptual dimen- others’ expense (Salmivalli, 2001). sions; “the lack of any single dimension will de- Envious feelings are also unpleasant because flate, though not completely eliminate, the overall they can be accompanied by frustration and hostil- degree” (Spreitzer, 1995). ity (Smith & Kim, 2007). Individuals are often mo- How does envy trigger the moral disengagement tivated to reduce envy and to thereby reduce “the process? The first broad mechanism (devaluing the envious [employee]’s frustration with feeling infe- target) includes dehumanizing and attributing rior” to others (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007: 5; to victims. Although envious individuals de- see also Crossley, 2009; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2006). sire the qualities, achievements, or possessions of We therefore expect envy to be related to under- others, research has shown they often believe that mining behaviors because undermining is one pos- envied individuals are unworthy of or cannot be sible way that individuals can reduce others’ per- trusted with their advantages (e.g., Dunn & ceived superiority and raise their own relative Schweitzer, 2004; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; Silver & standing while also venting their frustration and Sabini, 1978; Smith, 2004). Moral disengagement hostility (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Dunn & may allow envious individuals to justify the nega- Schweitzer, 2006). tive implications of harmful actions directed against others. Smith and Kim (2007) argued that Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement targets can be devalued over time as individuals begin to ruminate obsessively on what they per- We turn now to elucidating the moral disengage- ceive to be the undeserved advantages of envied ment process by which envy leads to individual others while ignoring the role that they themselves social undermining behavior. Grounded in social play in creating the disparity. As this thinking takes cognitive theory, moral disengagement refers to a hold, individuals “might be able to convince them- set of cognitive justifications (referred to as mech- selves that they have an increasingly legitimate anisms) that allow an individual to commit acts cause for feeling hostile although they may still be such as social undermining while avoiding the self- wary of publicizing their feelings. Seemingly legit- sanctions (e.g., self-condemnation, self-loathing) that ordinarily deter such behavior (Bandura, Bar- imate grievances may “free” envious people to ex- baranelli, Caprara, Pastorelli, & Regalia, 2001; De- ecute indirect acts of hostility (e.g., negative tert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008; McFerran, Aquino, and backbiting)” (Smith & Kim, 2007: 56). If this & Duffy, 2010). Critical to the foundation of social reasoning holds, individuals are likely to under- cognitive theory is that the same behavior might be mine because they believe others deserve to be viewed as reprehensible conduct toward colleagues undermined (Harris, Cikara, & Fiske, 2008). in one situation and as acceptable or necessary in The second broad category operates via a cogni- another context (Bandura, 1986). The activation of tive reconstrual of the conduct itself, which in- moral disengagement mechanisms eliminates self- cludes moral justification, use of euphemistic lan- deterrents to harmful behavior and can encourage guage, and advantageous comparison (Bandura, self-approval for antisocial conduct (Brief, Buttram, 1986). For example, through the process of moral & Dukerich, 2001). Moral disengagement has been justification, harmful behavior becomes acceptable conceptualized under three broad mechanisms and because it is viewed as valued or righteous. In this eight specific examples of disengagement. The first way, envious individuals may begin to believe that broad mechanism—devaluing the target—includes social undermining behavior is not only condoned dehumanizing or attributing blame to victims. The but appropriate. Envious individuals may use eu- second—reconstruing the conduct—involves such phemistic language to sanitize what normally specific mechanisms as moral justification, use of would be considered antisocial behavior (e.g., euphemistic language or labeling, and advanta- “making things right” or “making things fair”) and geous comparison. The third category—obscuring may also disengage mechanisms against antisocial or distorting consequences—includes displace- behavior through advantageous comparison—for ment of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, example, by rationalizing that their deviant behav- and minimizing behavioral consequences. Like ior is minimal compared with what others have Bandura and colleagues (Bandura et al., 2001; Ban- done to gain advantages. 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 647

The last set of disengagement practices operates growing body of theoretical and empirical work on by obscuring or distorting the effects of harmful moral exclusion has shown that people’s sense of behavior (Detert et al., 2008). Under this broad cat- moral obligation appears to be stronger when di- egory, individuals may displace or diffuse respon- rected toward those who “are closer to us and sibility for their behavior or minimize its conse- weaker toward those who are psychologically dis- quences. Social undermining behaviors such as tant” (Opotow, 1995: 351; Reed & Aquino, 2003; gossiping and backbiting may be subtle, and their Tepper, Moss, & Duffy, 2011). When people so- negative effects may not be immediately obvious. cially identify with other individuals, they are These conditions make it easier to distort the con- more likely to see the others as entitled to a share of sequences of such action (Bandura, 1999). Be- community resources and to other forms of aid cause the negative effects of undermining are (Clayton & Opotow, 2003). In contrast, any percep- cumulative and often grow more deleterious over tion of separation, including the simple perception time (Duffy et al., 2002), it is reasonable to expect that one is disconnected from others, can generate that envious individuals will use this form of social differentiation and moral exclusion (e.g., moral disengagement. Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Opotow, 1990; Reed & In sum, we propose that envy activates the cog- Aquino, 2003). nitive mechanisms associated with moral disen- These arguments lead us to advance an interac- gagement. Taken together, our arguments suggest a tive prediction regarding how responses to envy are mediating framework in which envy leads to sub- shaped by a person’s degree of identification with sequent social undermining behaviors via moral colleagues. The envy, moral disengagement, and disengagement. We expect, however, that individ- social undermining sequence is enmeshed in a uals’ identity-based construals of envied targets more complex social reality: social identification will influence whether this mediating process will and its corresponding sense of moral obligation hold. Specifically, we propose that the mediating may affect the likelihood that envy triggers the effect of moral disengagement will be weaker when moral disengagement process that leads to social social identification with colleagues is higher and undermining (a first-stage moderator in the media- that the mediating effect will be stronger when tion model). In the case of high social identifica- social identification is lower. The foundation for tion, the translation of envy into moral disengage- our moderated-indirect effect hypothesis is de- ment may be inhibited; in the case of low social scribed below. identification, the negative effects of envy may be exacerbated. Recall that moral disengagement al- lows an envier to undermine others to cope with Moderating Role of Social Identification threats to self-esteem and the discomfort associated As noted above, social identification has a prom- with envy. If the moral exclusion framework is inent role in the study of envy (Smith, 2004; Vid- correct, high levels of social identification should aillet, 2006), although its precise influence remains weaken envy’s triggering effect on the moral disen- murky (Alicke & Zell, 2008). Conceptualized in gagement process. High social identification terms of the connection that exists between peo- should reduce the likelihood that envy will trans- ple—personal affiliation, closeness, or similarity late into of others in a work envi- (e.g., values, gender, culture) (Schaubroeck & Lam, ronment, moral justification of antisocial behavior, 2004; Smith, 2000; Smith & Kim, 2007; van Dijk, and a belief that others deserve to be harmed (Clay- Ouwerkerk, Goslinga, Nieweg, & Gallucci, 2006)— ton & Opotow, 2003; Exline & Zell, 2008). Thus, we high levels of social identification with others argue that when envy occurs, high levels of social make invidious feelings more likely and more in- identification prevent individuals from disengag- tense (Tesser, 1988; see also van Dijk et al., 2006). ing their moral self-sanctions and inhibit social But the evidence thins and the overall picture be- undermining. comes more complicated when one considers how In contrast, we propose that when social identi- social identification influences the mediation pro- fication is low, envy will trigger a disengagement of cesses outlined above. No studies, to our knowl- self-regulatory mechanisms that makes social un- edge, have examined how social identification en- dermining more likely. Among individuals who hances or weakens the effects of envy on antisocial fail to identify with their coworkers and colleagues, behaviors such as social undermining. Why might the esteem threats and hostility associated with social identification (i.e., focusing on common envy are more likely to be translated into social bonds or connections) with colleagues weaken the undermining behaviors through moral disengage- mediating relationships among envy, moral disen- ment. In these situations, potential targets are seen gagement, and social undermining? For one thing, a as less entitled to and moral obligation 648 Academy of Management Journal June and more as eligible targets for harm doing (Brock- others.” The items had seven Likert-type response ner, 1990; Opotow, 1995, 2001; Staub, 1989). In options (␣ ϭ .71). other words, a lack of identification with coworkers Social identification (time 1). We followed allows envy to be translated into moral disengage- Schaubroeck and Lam (2004) and operationalized ment and subsequent harm-doing. social identification as perceived interpersonal The preceding arguments produce a first-stage similarity (see also Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman, moderated-indirect effect model that incorporates 2008). Three items were used, two of which are “In several related predictions among envy, moral dis- general, others with whom I work are similar to engagement, and social identification. Stated me” and “Most others I work with have a back- formally, ground similar to mine.” The items had five Likert- type response options (␣ ϭ .89). Hypothesis 1. The strength of the mediated Moral disengagement (time 1). Moral disengage- relationship between envy and social under- ment was assessed with a 15-item measure (␣ ϭ mining (via moral disengagement) varies de- .91) from McFerran et al. (2010) based on Bandura pending on the extent of social identification; et al.’s (1996) moral disengagement scale but the indirect effect of envy via moral disengage- adapted to a work context. The items assess the ment on social undermining is stronger when extent to which individuals construe injurious con- social identification is lower. duct as serving a morally justified purpose, mask censurable activities through euphemistic language STUDY 1: METHODS or advantageous comparison, disavow or displace responsibility for harm, and blame and devalue Sample and Procedures targets of harmful conduct. Following Bandura et The participants were full-time employees at a al. (1996), the scale items comprised diverse forms university hospital in a midwestern city. Data for of detrimental conduct. Sample items are “People this study were collected at two times eight months who are mistreated at work have usually done apart. At time 1, a hospital administrator notified something to deserve it” and “Making fun of your employees of the study and its via e-mail one coworkers doesn’t really hurt them.” The items had week prior to the study. Members of the research seven Likert-type response options. Following team staffed a private conference room near the prior researchers (e.g., Bandura et al., 1996; Detert cafeteria and administered the questionnaire dur- et al., 2008; McFerran et al., 2010), we conceptual- ing three lunch shifts (11 a.m.–1 p.m., 7–9 p.m., ized moral disengagement as a single higher-order and 1–3 a.m.) for five consecutive days. We col- construct. We conducted a second-order confirma- lected data during the lunch break because hospital tory factor analysis with the 15 items loading onto administrators conveyed that it was important that the three first-order latent factors and the three all hospital employees (on all three shifts) be pro- first-order mechanisms loading onto a single sec- vided the chance to participate. A total of 432 em- ond-order latent variable. The results revealed ex- ployees completed time 1 questionnaires (a 15 per- cellent overall model fit (␹2 ϭ 158.53, df ϭ 87, ␹2/df cent approximate response rate). Eight months after ϭ 1.82, AGFI ϭ .93, CFI ϭ .96, RMSEA ϭ .04). the initial data collection, time 2 surveys were ad- Thus, we averaged responses to the 15 items to ministered following the same lunch hour proce- form an overall moral disengagement measure (␣ dure described above. A total of 464 employees ϭ .91). completed time 2 questionnaires (a 17 percent ap- Social undermining (time 2). We measured so- proximate response rate); 177 of these individuals cial undermining at time 2 using Duffy et al.’s also participated in the first phase of data collec- (2006) six-item measure (␣ ϭ .93). Participants tion. Missing data on key variables reduced the were asked to report their level of undermining in analysis sample size to 160. Women totaled 77 the months since the first survey was completed. percent of the participants; the average age was 37 Sample items are “I sometimes talk bad about my years; and the average tenure was 9 years. coworkers behind their backs” and “I sometimes intentionally give my coworkers the ‘silent treat- ment.’” The items had seven Likert-type response Measures options. Envy (time 1). Envy was assessed using five Control variables (time 1). Drawing on a review items that Vecchio (1995, 1999) developed and val- of the relevant literature, we controlled for several idated. Sample items are “Most of my coworkers variables. Age, gender, and tenure may be related to have it better than I do” and “At work, I see myself perceptions of social interactions, status, and social as an underdog who isn’t taken as seriously as comparisons, as well as to antisocial behavior (e.g., 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 649

Duffy et al., 2006; Lakey & Cassidy, 1990; Tepper, ables—envy and social identification—and to rule 2000) and were therefore controlled. We also con- out the possibility that common method effects trolled for negative affective disposition and proce- could explain the presence of the second-order fac- dural justice, as they may relate to envious emo- tor. Following Spreitzer (1995), we included social tions and social undermining behavior (Cohen- identification (⌬␹ 2 ϭ 227.25, df ϭ 64, p Ͻ .01) and Charash & Mueller, 2007; Duffy et al., 2002). envy (⌬␹2 ϭ 274.93, df ϭ 79, p Ͻ .01) as separate Negative affective disposition (␣ ϭ .83) was opera- first-order factors in the moral disengagement sec- tionalized using the negative markers from the Pos- ond-order model. A third model included both so- itive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Wat- cial identification and envy as additional first-or- son, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) (␣ ϭ .87). Procedural der factors (⌬␹2 ϭ 537.19, df ϭ 138, p Ͻ .01). In justice was measured with four items from Niehoff each comparison model, the fit of the model was and Moorman (1993) (␣ ϭ .75). reduced. We also estimated several additional models in which social identification and envy items loaded on first-order factors in the moral STUDY 1: RESULTS disengagement model. In each case, model fit was Response Bias Checks and Measurement Issues significantly better for the hypothesized model with moral disengagement as a second-order latent To address the potential for response and self- factor and social identification and envy items selection biases, we coded longitudinal partici- loading on their respective first-order factors. pants as 1 and coded those who participated at time 1 only as 0 and included this dichotomy as the dependent variable in a logistic regression analysis Hypothesis Tests with time 1 predictors (envy, social identification, and moral disengagement) as well as several demo- The descriptive statistics and correlations among graphic variables (age, gender, tenure, and salary the study variables are shown in Table 1. The re- level). No variable in the equation was significant. gression analyses are shown in Table 2. We tested We also compared longitudinal participants (coded the moderated-mediation hypothesis using the 1) with those participating only at time 2 (coded 0) nested-equations path analytic approach advocated on the demographic variables as well as on time 2 by Edwards and Lambert (2007), which expresses coworker undermining, but again no significant the relationships as the integration of the family of predictors were found. The participants’ age (37 equations that comprise moderated-mediation years on average) and gender (77 percent female) tests. This is accomplished by substituting the re- profiles were very similar to estimates of the gression equation(s) for the mediating variable(s) broader hospital population provided by hospital (moral disengagement, in this case) into the equa- administration (Ϸ38–39 years, 80 percent female). tion for a given dependent variable (here, social Although our second-order factor analysis for the undermining). These reduced-form equations are moral disengagement measure showed good model then used to derive direct, indirect, and total effects fit, we conducted additional analyses to assess the of the independent variable (individual-level un- adequacy of the measurement of our other key vari- dermining) across levels of the moderator variable.

TABLE 1 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics, Study 1a

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3456789

1. Age 37.40 9.31 2. Gender 0.77 0.41 –.09 3. Tenure 9.04 7.02 .57** .08 4. Negative affectivity 2.12 0.58 –.16* .01 –.19* (.83) 5. Procedural justice 3.72 1.29 –.13 –.12 –.13 –.08 (.75) 6. Envy 3.60 0.99 –.07 .10 .07 .20** –.27** (.71) 7. Social identification 3.28 0.81 –.14 .07 .02 –.02 .23** –.09 (.70) 8. Moral disengagement 3.24 0.76 .06 .03 .22** .16* –.32** .50** –.03 (.87) 9. Social undermining, time 2 2.90 0.91 –.07 –.03 –.14 .18* .02 .13* –.10* .18* (.85)

a n ϭ 160. Variables were assessed at time 1 except where noted. Gender was coded 1 for “female” and 0 for “male.” Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported on the main diagonal in parentheses. * p Ͻ .05 ** p Ͻ .01 650 Academy of Management Journal June

TABLE 2 Regression Results, Study 1a

Time 2 ؍ Moral Disengagement Social Undermining

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Age .00 .00 .00 .00 Gender –.06 –.03 –.24 –.24 Tenure .02 .02 –.01 –.01 Negative affectivity .21* .20* .25* .23* Procedural justice –.11* –.09* .05 .08 Envy .44** .49** .16* .06 Social identification .02 –.00 –.17* –.18** Social identification envy –.24** Moral disengagement .22** Total R2 .40** .43** .14** .18** ⌬R2 .40** .03** .14** .04**

a n ϭ 160. Variables were assessed at time 1 except where noted. Gender was coded 1 for “female” and 0 for “male.” * p Ͻ .05 ** p Ͻ .01

Our theoretical model is an example of a “first- icant (b ϭ –.24, p Ͻ .01) and explained an addi- stage” mediation hypothesis because the moderat- tional 3 percent of the variance. As predicted, the ing effect of social identification operates on the relationship between envy and moral disengage- first stage of the indirect relationship between envy ment was strongly positive when social identifica- ϭ Ͻ and social undermining behavior (Edwards & Lam- tion was low (blow SI .73, p .01), and was bert, 2007). significant, but it was significantly weaker when ϭ We used path analysis conventions for describ- social identification was high (bhigh SI .25, p ing relationships in terms of the direct, indirect, Ͻ .01). and total effects of envy on social undermining at The right side of Table 2 reports the regression different levels of social identification. Thus, PMX results for social undermining. Envy positively (b refers to the paths from X (envy) to M (moral dis- ϭ .16, p Ͻ .05) and social identification negatively ϭ Ͻ engagement mediator); PYM is the path from M (b –.17, p .05) predicted social undermining (moral disengagement) to Y (social undermining); assessed eight months later at time 2. At step 2,

PYX is the path from X to Y (that is, the direct effect moral disengagement positively predicted social ϫ ϭ Ͻ of envy on social undermining); PYM PMX refers undermining (b .22, p .01), explaining 4 per- ϩ ϫ to the indirect effects, and PYX (PYM PMX)isthe cent of the variance in social undermining. total effect of X on Y. Product terms such as indi- We used the information from the regression re- rect effects are not normally distributed and, con- sults in Table 2 to conduct path-analytic tests at sequently, the type 1 error rate may be inflated low and high levels of social identification. As Ta- when such terms are tested for significance (Shrout ble 3 shows and Figure 2 illustrates, the effects of & Bolger, 2002). Therefore, we followed Edwards envy on social undermining through moral disen- and Lambert’s (2007) suggestions and estimated the gagement vary across levels of social identification. sampling distributions of the product of regression When social identification was low, the indirect coefficients using a bootstrap procedure with effects of envy on social undermining through ϫ ϭ Ͻ 10,000 samples to construct confidence intervals moral disengagement (PYM PMX .16, p .01) ϩ ϫ ϭ Ͻ for the significance tests of indirect and total and the total effects (PYX [PYM PMX] .22, p effects. .01) were significant. In contrast, the indirect (PYM ϫ ϭ ϩ ϫ As the regression results in the left-hand col- PMX .05, n.s.) and total effects (PYX [PYM ϭ umns of Table 2 show, envy is significantly related PMX] .11, n.s.) of envy on social undermining to moral disengagement in step 1 (b ϭ .44, p Ͻ .01), were not significant when social identification was explaining a unique 19 percent of the variance high. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Following (semipartial R2), but the main effect of social iden- Edwards and Lambert (2007) and Duffy et al. tification was not significant (b ϭ .02, n.s.). In step (2006), we conducted several tests to compare our 2 of the moral disengagement equations, the inter- hypothesized first-stage moderated mediation action of envy and social identification was signif- model with other possible models that could pro- 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 651

TABLE 3 Path-Analytic Results, Study 1: Indirect and Total Effects of Envy (via Moral Disengagement) on Social Undermining at Low and High Levels of Social Identificationa

Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects ؋ ؉ ؋ Variables PMX PYM (PYX) (PYM PMX) (PYX [PYM PMX])

Simple paths for low social identification .73** .22** .06 .16** .22** Simple paths for high social identification .25** .22** .06 .05 .11

a n ϭ 160. Coefficients in bold are significantly different across social identification levels. ** p Ͻ .01

vide an alternative explanation for our findings. STUDY 2: THEORETICAL EXTENSIONS Specifically, we examined whether social identifi- AND CONTEXT cation moderated the direct relationship between envy and social undermining and whether social The findings from Study 1 support our theory of identification moderated the second stage between the relationship between envy and social under- moral disengagement and social undermining. Nei- mining and thereby make two novel theoretical ther interaction term was significant. Hence, the contributions. First, Study 1 results elucidate a hypothesized first-stage moderation model was the mechanism, moral disengagement, through which best representation of the data. envy of others at work relates to social undermin-

FIGURE 2 Moderated Indirect Effect of Envy on Social Undermining (via Moral Disengagement) at Low and High Levels of Social Identification, Study 1 652 Academy of Management Journal June ing behavior. Second, these results diverge from We argue that norms for undermining in a social current thinking by showing that envy relates to context either strengthen or weaken the relation- social undermining behavior (through moral disen- ship between moral disengagement and individual gagement) only when social identification with co- social undermining behavior. We define undermin- workers is low. When social identification is high, ing norms in the team context as aggregate percep- envious individuals do not disengage their self- tions that individuals in the social context are un- sanctions against harmful behavior. Thus, social dermining others (e.g., Duffy et al., 2006; Tepper et identification appears to be an antidote to the neg- al., 2008). Our conceptual definition reflects the ative interpersonal effects of envy. idea of a descriptive norm, or the “perceived prev- Study 2 was designed to extend Study 1 in two alence or typicality of a given behavior” (Jacobson, ways. First, we sought to constructively replicate Mortensen, & Cialdini, 2011: 434). In essence, we Study 1 by examining our model at the team level argue that team norms for undermining behavior and using an alternative operationalization of so- play a role in conditioning or moderating the rela- cial identification: degree of within-team identifi- tionship between moral disengagement and indi- cation. Drawing on social-identification-based the- vidual social undermining (Bamberger & Biron, ories, Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, and 2007; Duffy et al., 2006). Williams (1986) suggested that team identification Although team undermining norms may directly involves awareness of membership, an influence individual undermining behavior, anti- (positive or negative) of this membership, and af- social behavior researchers (e.g., Duffy et al., 2006; fective responses to membership. That is, teams Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998) and social influ- differ systematically in terms of whether members ence researchers (e.g., Hackman, 1992) have long define themselves as part of a team, view this mem- recognized that such norms may also moderate the bership positively, and have an affinity for other relationship between individual factors and behav- team members. Modeling identification as a team- iors. We expect that the relationship between moral level construct challenges the robustness of the disengagement and individual undermining behav- Study 1 findings across contexts and operational- ior will be moderated by team undermining norms. izations of key constructs, which improves the We believe that when team undermining norms value of our replication (Schmidt, 2009). are strong—when the social environment of a team The second major objective of Study 2 was to is rife with individuals undermining their col- incorporate a broader conceptualization of social leagues—the relationship between moral disen- context, one including ambient undermining gagement and individual undermining behavior norms, into our model. Specifically, in Study 2 we will be stronger. Under these conditions, as moral examined the notion that undermining norms pres- disengagement increases, individuals will have not ent in a team may serve as another antidote to the only selectively disengaged self-sanctions against effects of envy by shaping how individuals react to antisocial behavior, but will also have been in a moral disengagement. Social influence and identity team social context that encourages such behav- researchers (e.g., Turner, 1982, 1991) have argued ior. The information contained in a strong de- that implicit and informal pressures to conform to scriptive norm for social undermining is partic- social norms can influence behavior, even in the ularly pertinent in this situation. First, absence of explicit agreements or formal rules. So- individuals use the information communicated cial influence can be categorized as normative, in- in descriptive norms as a heuristic for behaviors formational, and referent informational (e.g., Bam- that are likely to be immediately advantageous to berger & Biron, 2007; Turner, 1991). Normative themselves—for example, behaviors that are influence involves pressures to conform that are aligned with intrapersonal rather than interper- based on individual desires to be approved of sonal motives (Cialdini & Trost, 1998). Second, and/or avoid rejection. That is, pressures to con- because individuals use descriptive norms, or the form are exerted because others in the social envi- typical behavior exhibited by others in their so- ronment have the means to reward or punish. In- cial environment, as a short-cut for behavioral formational influence involves individuals decision making in a given context, the effects of searching for information that can be used to make norms are likely to be the most powerful when accurate behavioral choices (Turner, 1982). Refer- self-regulatory capability is depleted (Berger & ent informational forces are those that individuals Rand, 2008). When team undermining norms are use in attempts “to align their own beliefs and strong, moral disengagement (that is, the deacti- perceptions with those deemed characteristic of vation of self-sanctions against harming others) some salient social identity” (Bamberger & Biron, should be a powerful predictor of social 2007: 184). undermining. 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 653

When team undermining norms are weak—when students to teams randomly. The analysis sample few individuals in a social environment undermine size was 247. Data for this study were collected four their colleagues—the relationship between moral dis- times (at four- to eight-week intervals) during the engagement and individual undermining behavior course of the semester. The first collection took should be weaker. Here, the social environment ex- place during the first week of class; the second erts normative, informational, and referent informa- collection was done approximately four weeks lat- tional pressures to refrain from injurious behavior. As er; the third data collection was during week 8 of such, even though individual self-sanctions against the term; and the final collection was done during antisocial behavior may be deactivated (i.e., moral the last week of class. We used data from all four disengagement is high), the social environment waves in this study. Data for the control variables should assuage the inclination to undermine others. were collected at time 1; data for the envy and team These arguments can be integrated with our theory identification variables were collected at time 2; development in Study 1 to produce an elaborated moral disengagement and team social undermin- process model that accounts for the mechanism by ing, at time 3; and individual social undermining which envy leads to social undermining (i.e., moral behavior, at time 4. The classes included 408 stu- disengagement) and antidotes to envy based on both dents in 96 teams. Missing data over the four waves social identity and social context. In the literature, of data reduced the individual-level analysis sam- envy of others is viewed as being a “call to action” ple to 247, representing an overall 60 percent par- (Smith & Kim, 2007: 54; Vidaillet, 2006) in of the form ticipation rate. Members of the research team (not of antisocial behavior; we qualify this line of reason- course instructors) distributed and collected the ing and theorize that this link, through moral disen- study questionnaires. Participants were informed gagement, will be observed under a narrow set of that their responses would be kept confidential and circumstances. We propose that the relationship be- that their participation was voluntary. The average tween envy and moral disengagement is stronger age of participants was 22.99 (s.d. ϭ 3.02), and 56 when team identification is low and that the relation- percent were female. ship between moral disengagement and individual social undermining is stronger when undermining Measures: Independent Variables norms are high. Stated in the terms that Edwards and Lambert (2007) used, the indirect effect of envy on Envy (time 2). Envy was again assessed with the social undermining behavior will be strongest when Vecchio (1995, 1999) measure, adapted to the team team identification is low (a first-stage moderator) context. The items had seven Likert-type response and when team undermining norms are strong (the options (␣ ϭ .83). second-stage moderator). The integrative hypothesis Team identification (time 2). Team identifica- is stated below: tion was assessed using a nine-item measure from Wheeless, Wheeless, and Dickson-Markman Hypothesis 2. The strength of the mediated (1978). Sample items are “My team is very close to relationship between envy and social under- each other” and “My team members share a lot in mining (via moral disengagement) varies de- common with one another.” The items had seven pending on the extent of social identification Likert-type response options (␣ ϭ .79). and team undermining norms; the indirect ef- Moral disengagement (time 3). As in Study 1, fect of envy on social undermining is stronger moral disengagement was measured with the 15- when social identification is lower and team item scale from McFerran et al. (2010), adapted to undermining norms are higher. the context. The items had seven Likert-type re- sponse options (␣ ϭ .90). A second-order confirma- STUDY 2: METHODS tory factor model revealed good overall model fit (␹2 ϭ 128.76, df ϭ 87, ␹2/df ϭ 1.48, AGFI ϭ .93, CFI Sample ϭ .97, RMSEA ϭ .05). The coefficient alpha reli- Participants were enrolled in upper-division ability for the 15-item overall measure was .90. business administration courses at a large midwest- Team undermining norms (time 3). The 13-item ern university. The study was designed to closely social undermining measure from Duffy et al. approximate the work done by groups in industrial (2002) was used (␣ ϭ .93). The items were adapted settings by ensuring that (1) students were assigned from a coworker perspective to a group context. to groups that remained intact throughout the term, The instructions directed participants to report and (2) groups completed multiple assignments how often their team members intentionally en- throughout the term (see Duffy, Shaw, and Stark gaged in each form of undermining. Sample items [2000] for a similar approach). Instructors assigned are “How often have your team members intention- 654 Academy of Management Journal June ally talked bad about other teammates behind their team identification and envy items loaded on first- backs?” and “How often have your team members order factors in the moral disengagement model. In intentionally given each other the “silent treat- each case, model fit was significantly better for the ment”?” The items had response options from 1 hypothesized model with moral disengagement as (“never”) to 7 (“all the time”). Mean scores on the a second-order latent factor and team identification 13 items were aggregated to the team level. and envy items loading on their respective first- Individual social undermining (time 4). We order factors. measured individual social-undermining behavior We calculated rwg(j) (James, Demaree, & Wolf, at time 4 using Duffy et al.’s (2002) 13-item measure 1984) to assess intrateam agreement and also cal- (␣ ϭ .95). We adapted the measure to reflect self- culated ICC1 and ICC2 before aggregating the team reports of one’s own undermining behavior during identification and team undermining norms mea- the term (e.g., “How often have you intentionally sures to the team level. For team identification at ϭ talked bad about your team members behind their time 2, the mean rwg(j) was .85 (range 0.24–1.00), backs?”). The items had response options that and 86 percent of teams had agreement levels ranged from 1 (“never”) to 7 (“all the time”). higher than 0.70. ICC1 represents the reliability of a Control variables (time 1). We controlled for single or individual assessment of the group mean, age, gender, negative affectivity (using PANAS whereas ICC2 reflects the reliability of the team [Watson et al., 1988]), and procedural justice (six means. These values were .21 and .55 for ICC1 and items [Moorman, 1991]), following the arguments ICC2, respectively. For team undermining norms at for their inclusion in Study 1. Coefficient alpha time 3, rwg(j) values ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, with reliabilities for negative affectivity and procedural an average value of .99. ICC values were .17 and .48 justice were .88 and .79, respectively. Tenure was for ICC1 and ICC2, respectively. Supporting aggre- not relevant in the context of student teams. gation, the rwg(j) values indicated strong within- team agreement, and ICC1 calculations revealed significant between-team variance in the team STUDY 2: RESULTS identification and team undermining norms mea- sures. The ICC2 values fell below standard bench- Response Bias Checks and Measurement Issues marks for team-mean reliability, which may result We used logistic regressions and comparisons in underestimated relationships (Bliese, 1998). The over time periods to assess potential response bias. implications will be addressed in the Discussion. First, we compared those who were eliminated be- cause of missing data (n ϭ 161) with participants in Hypothesis Tests the final analysis sample (n ϭ 247) on a range of demographic and expectation variables collected at The tests of the integrative moderated-mediation time 1. The variables were age, gender, grade point hypothesis using team-level identification in- average (GPA), class standing, number of prior volved a “slopes as outcomes” or cross-level mod- classes taken that involved teamwork, and efficacy erator analysis in hierarchical linear modeling expectations for the class; for example, “I am con- (HLM; e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The analy- fident that I can do well in this class.” We coded ses for evaluating the replication model were par- analysis sample participants as 1 and participants allel to those in Study 1, although coefficients are at time 1 only as 0 and included this dichotomy as ␥’s in HLM, and the interaction of envy and team the dependent variable in a logistic regression anal- identification (XZ) is a cross-level moderation ef- ysis with the predictors. Only one variable, gender, fect. Tests of the theoretical extension involved was significant in this analysis. Male participants team undermining norms as a second stage moder- were more likely to have missing data on one of the ator. Thus, the nested equations for the full model study variables. Gender was included as a control incorporated this additional moderating variable. in the multivariate analyses. We also compared The tests of conditional indirect effects in the full measurement models with team identification (⌬␹2 model examine whether the mediated effect of ϭ 240.24, df ϭ 64, p Ͻ .01) and envy (⌬␹2 ϭ 242.75, envy on individual social undermining behavior df ϭ 62, p Ͻ .01) included as separate first-order through moral disengagement varies as a function factors in the moral disengagement second-order of team identification (the stage 1 moderation of model. A third model included both social identi- team identification on the envy-moral disengage- fication and envy as additional first-order factors ment relationship) and team undermining norms (⌬␹2 ϭ 489.48, df ϭ 208, p Ͻ .01). In each compar- (the stage 2 moderation of team undermining ison model, the fit of the model was reduced. We norms on the relationship between moral disen- also estimated several additional models in which gagement and individual social undermining). 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 655

␶ A null model test with moral disengagement as where 11 intercept-as-outcomes is the residual be- the outcome variable revealed that 8 percent (p Ͻ tween-group variance in slopes in a model without ␶ .05) of the variance in moral disengagement resided the cross-level interaction term, and 11 slopes-as- at the team level and 92 percent resided at the outcomes is the residual between-group variance in individual level. When individual social under- slopes in a model with the interaction term. Using mining was the outcome, the null model test re- this formula, we found that team identification ex- vealed that 6 percent (p Ͻ .05) of the variance plains 20 percent of the available slope variance in resided at the team level and 94 percent resided at the relationship between envy and moral the individual level. disengagement. Descriptive statistics for and correlations among The right side of Table 5 includes the results the study variables are presented in Table 4. The when individual social undermining (time 4) was HLM results are shown in Table 5, and the path- the outcome variable. Envy was positively related analytic estimates are shown in Table 6. As the to individual social undermining assessed at time 4 HLM results in Table 5 show, when moral disen- (␥ ϭ .07, p Ͻ .05), explaining 3 percent of the gagement at time 2 is the outcome, envy is signifi- available variance at level 1, and team identifica- ␥ ϭ Ͻ cantly and positively related ( .29, p .01) in tion was also significantly related to individual step 1, explaining 11 percent of the available level social undermining assessed at time 4 (␥ ϭ –.07, p 1 variance in moral disengagement. Team identifi- Ͻ .05). In step 2, moral disengagement was signif- cation, in contrast, is not a significant level 2 pre- icantly related to social undermining (␥ ϭ .07, p Ͻ ␥ ϭ dictor of moral disengagement in step 1 ( –.11, .01) and explained 14 percent of the level 1 vari- n.s.). In step 2 of the moral disengagement equa- ance, while team undermining norms was also a tions, the team identification cross-level interac- significant predictor (␥ ϭ .12, p Ͻ .01), explaining ␥ ϭ Ͻ tion is significant ( –.26, p .05). When team 70 percent of the available variance in intercepts at identification was low, the relationship between level 2. envy and moral disengagement was significant and ␥ ϭ Ͻ The information from the HLM results in Table 5 positive ( low time I .60, p .01), but it was not was used to conduct path-analytic tests at low and significant when team identification was high high levels of team identification. These results are (␥ ϭ .02, n.s.). We computed a pseudo-R2 high time I shown in Table 6. The path estimates revealed that for team identification as a level 2 moderator of the the effects of envy on individual social undermin- relationship between envy and moral disengage- ing through moral disengagement varied across lev- ment. Level 2 slopes as outcomes pseudo-R2 values els of team identification. When team identification are calculated relative to the amount of between- was low, the indirect effects of envy on social un- group variation in slopes (Hofmann, Griffin, & dermining (PYM ϫ PMX ϭ .04, p Ͻ .05) and the Gavin, 2000), and the formula is: total effects of envy on social undermining were significant (PYX ϩ [PYM ϫ PMX] ϭ .06, p Ͻ .01). Pseudo-R2, level 2 slope model ϭ (␶ intercept- 11 As expected, neither indirect nor total effects of Ϫ␶ as-outcomes 11 slopes-as-outcomes) ⁄ envy on social undermining were significant when ␶ 11 intercept-as-outcomes, (1) team identification was high. In addition, the first-

TABLE 4 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics, Study 2a

Variables Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age, time 1 22.99 3.02 2. Gender, time 1 0.56 0.49 –.01 3. Negative affectivity, time 1 1.81 0.62 .00 .05 (.88) 4. Procedural justice, time 3 3.59 0.88 –.06 –.03 .15* (.79) 5. Envy, time 2 2.33 0.87 .06 .18** .13* –.05 (.83) 6. Team identification, time 2, team level 3.81 1.2 –.02 –.05 –.08 –.07 .19** (.79) 7. Moral disengagement, time 3 2.86 0.86 –.15** .28** .24** –.09 .32** .08 (.90) 8. Team undermining norms, time 3, team level 1.22 0.16 .04 .08 .07 –.10 .06 –.15* –.20** (.93) 9. Social undermining, time 4 1.32 0.28 .01 .10 .12 .01 .16* .23** .08 .44** (.95)

a n ϭ 247. Coefficient alpha reliabilities are reported on the main diagonal in parentheses. Gender coded 1 for “female” and 0 for “male.” * p Ͻ .05 ** p Ͻ .01 656 Academy of Management Journal June

TABLE 5 Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results, Study 2a

Moral Disengagement, Time 2 Social Undermining, Time 4

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age, time 1 –.05** –.06** .00 .00 .01 Gender, time 1 .42** .39** .05 .01 .00 Negative affectivity, time 1 .42** .33** .05 .02 .03 Procedural justice, time 3 –.10 –.09 .01 .02 .01 Envy, time 2 .29** .31** .07* .02 .02 Team identification, time 2 –.11 –.15 –.07* –.02 –.02 Team identification ϫ envy –.26* Moral disengagement, time 3 .07** .07** Team undermining norms, time 3 .12** –.02 Moral disengagement ϫ team undermining norms .12** ⌬ pseudo R2: Level 1 “intercepts as outcomes” .28** .03* .14** ⌬ pseudo R2: Level 2 “intercepts as outcomes” .02 .02* .70** ⌬ pseudo R2: Level 2 “slopes as outcomes” .20* .74**

a n ϭ 247. * p Ͻ .05 ** p Ͻ .01 stage moderation, indirect effects, and total effects the path estimates in Table 7 show, the effects of were significantly stronger when team identifica- envy on individual undermining behavior differed tion was low. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported in across levels of both the first- and second-stage Study 2. moderators. Specifically, when team undermining The results in Table 5 also show that the level norms were low, the effects of envy on individual of team undermining norms (time 3) moderates undermining behavior at a later time were amelio- the relationship between moral disengagement rated. Neither the conditional indirect or total ef- and individual social undermining (time 4). A fects of envy on individual social undermining plot of this relationship (Figure 3) revealed that were significant when team undermining norms the relationship between moral disengagement were low, regardless of the level of team identifica- and individual social undermining was signifi- tion. A different pattern of findings was observed cant and positive when team undermining norms when team undermining norms were high. Here, ␭ ϭ Ͻ were high ( high team undermining norms .19, p .01) when team identification was also low, there were ϫ ϭ Ͻ but was not significant when team undermining significant indirect (PYM PMX .11, p .01) and ␭ ϭ ϩ ϫ ϭ Ͻ norms were low ( low team undermining norms –.05, total PYX [PYM PMX] .13, p .01) effects of n.s.). A summary that includes path-analytic esti- envy of social undermining behavior at time 4. The mates for the extended model (the tests of Hypoth- indirect and total effects were not significant when esis 2) is shown in Table 7. Here, the direct and team undermining norms were high and team iden- indirect effects of envy on individual social under- tification was also high. In addition, the indirect mining behavior are shown across levels of the effects and total effects were significantly stronger first-stage moderator (team identification, time 2) when team identification was low and team under- and the second-stage moderator (team undermining mining norms were high compared to other condi- norms, time 3). As the HLM results in Table 5 and tions, as predicted. Figure 3 shows the plot of the

TABLE 6 Path-Analytic Results, Study 2: Indirect and Total Effects of Envy (via Moral Disengagement) on Social Undermining at Low and High Levels of Team Identification (Replication Model)a

Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects ؋ ؉ ؋ Variables PMX PYM (PYX) (PYM PMX) (PYX [PYM PMX])

Simple paths for low team identification .60** .07** .02 .04* .06** Simple paths for high team identification .02 .07** .02 .00 .02

a n ϭ 247. Coefficients in bold are significantly different across team identification levels. * p Ͻ .05 ** p Ͻ .01 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 657

FIGURE 3 Moderated Indirect Effect of Envy on Social Undermining (via Moral Disengagement) at Low and High Levels of Social Identification and Team Undermining Norms, Study 2

indirect effect of envy on individual social under- As in Study 1, we conduct additional tests to mining through moral disengagement for the four challenge the hypothesized model (Duffy et al., combinations of low and high team identification 2006; Edwards & Lambert, 2007). We estimated di- and team undermining norms. As the Figure illus- rect-effect moderation (the interaction of envy and trates, the indirect effect was significant and posi- team identification) and an alternative form of sec- tive only under the combination of low team iden- ond-stage moderation (the interaction of moral dis- tification and high team undermining norms; under engagement and team identification) in predicting all other conditions, there was no indirect effect of individual social undermining. Neither of these in- envy on social undermining. Hence, Hypothesis 2 teractions was significant. Thus, the hypothesized was supported. model was the best portrayal of the data: the effects

TABLE 7 Path-Analytic Results, Study 2: Indirect and Total Effects of Envy (via Moral Disengagement) on Social Undermining at Low and High Levels of Team Identification and Low and High Levels of Team Undermining Norms (Theoretical Extension Model)a

Direct Effects Indirect Effects Total Effects ؋ ؉ ؋ Variables PMX PYM (PYX) (PYM PMX) (PYX [PYM PMX])

When team undermining norms are low Simple paths for low team identification .60** –.05 .02 –.03 .01 Simple paths for high team identification .02 –.05 .02 .00 .02

When team undermining norms are high Simple paths for low team identification .60** .19** .02 .11** .13** Simple paths for high team identification .02 .19** .02 .00 .02

a n ϭ 247. Coefficients in bold are significantly different across team identification levels. Coefficients in italic are significantly different across team undermining norms levels. ** p Ͻ .01 658 Academy of Management Journal June of envy on individual undermining behavior were tification plays in shaping these consequences. Our carried through moral disengagement only when model, couched in moral disengagement and social team identification was low and social undermin- identity theories, reveals that although envy may be ing of team members was high. more likely under high social identification, this contextual variable also tempers antisocial re- sponses by inhibiting the process of moral DISCUSSION disengagement. A second important contribution of our research Implications for Theory and Research is that it expands understanding of the role of moral We developed and tested a model that explicates disengagement as a predictor of willingness to how and under what circumstances employees en- harm others. Other studies (e.g., Aquino, Reed, gage in social undermining behavior as an interper- Thau, & Freeman, 2007; Detert et al., 2008) have sonally destructive way of responding to feelings of documented relationships between moral disen- envy. A two-wave study of hospital employees sup- gagement and various antisocial responses. How- ported our prediction that social undermining is ever, our model and empirical findings go beyond more likely to occur when individuals morally dis- previous research by demonstrating the relation- engage the self-sanctions that ordinarily inhibit ship between an emotional antecedent—envy— them from harming others. However, we also and the process of disengagement. By doing so, our showed that disengagement did not occur when model draws attention to the role that envy plays in employees identified strongly with coworkers. We shaping cognitive processes (beyond general nega- replicated and extended this finding in a four-wave tive affectivity and procedural justice) and, ulti- study of student teams and showed that the indi- mately, negative behavior and responds to calls for rect effect of envy on social undermining through additional studies of discrete emotions. moral disengagement occurred only when social It is important to note that the effect sizes of envy identification was low and team undermining on social undermining in both studies were rela- norms were high. tively small. That is, the indirect and total effects of A novel contribution of our work is the introduc- envy were statistically significant and significantly tion of a theoretical model that provides a nuanced stronger under our hypothesized “ideal” condi- explanation of how and under what circumstances tions, but in our models a large amount of variance feelings of envy predict social undermining. Our was left unexplained even under these conditions. model differs from previous theories of envy in that Thus, readers should keep in mind the overall mag- we suggest that the process leading from envy to nitude of the effects when evaluating the empirical social undermining partly depends on peoples’ contributions of our research. On the one hand, the willingness to disable self-sanctions against harm results supported our predictions in two distinct doing. To our knowledge, no previous theories contexts and were observed to go over and above have introduced moral disengagement as an inter- controls for established predictors of antisocial be- vening mechanism in the envy–behavioral re- haviors such as negative affectivity and procedural sponse relationship. But we go even further in this justice. On the other hand, envy is considered a model by proposing that social identification can “call to action” (Smith & Kim, 2007: 53) and is seen neutralize moral disengagement as a response to by researchers as a prominent conceptual anteced- envy. Finally, our model introduces a second mod- ent of undermining; our results suggest that envy’s erator in the process that leads from envy to social role may have been overstated in the literature. We undermining by highlighting the role that team offer four potential explanations for the effect sizes norms play in further disabling the link between here. First, we took a general view of envy of others, envy and harm doing. The explanation of how envy thus using one of three conceptualizations that ap- leads to social undermining therefore involves pear in the literature. This perspective has certain multiple stages in which a key mediating con- advantages; in particular, it captures persistent in- struct—moral disengagement—can be either rein- vidious reactions (e.g., our example of being envi- forced or weakened by social-contextual factors. ous of other colleagues’ superior publishing pat- Prior research has demonstrated that social iden- terns) that are not captured by an episodic view of tification heightens envious feelings; we found a envy. But perhaps social undermining is more significant, positive relationship between these two likely to follow a specific or “hot” episode of envy variables in Study 2, but not in Study 1. Our per- (e.g., gossiping about a colleague immediately after spective shows that such findings do not tell the the colleague receives an acceptance letter). Our complete story because they fail to account for the results show the cumulative level of envy in a work consequences of envy and the role that social iden- context relates to social undermining under certain 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 659 conditions (albeit at a modest level), but an un- with others, but it also provides numerous oppor- known is whether envy is more strongly related to tunities to curb potentially damaging reactions to self-improvement or to other self-image-enhancing invidious comparisons. In work contexts, individ- techniques under those or other conditions. As an uals must attempt to maintain a positive standing anonymous reviewer suggested, an important step to perform well and receive applicable outcomes for future research would be to design field studies; such as promotions and pay raises and, clearly, to one example would be to use experience sampling avoid termination. In the student context, envy that and sociometric (network) methods and designs to leads to social undermining may result in poor peer link specific envy-inducing events and specific in- evaluation grades. In both cases, prohibitions dividuals to changes in moral disengagement and against social undermining may take the form of social undermining behavior. Such designs would implicit pressures or norms, or specific formal “ze- allow a comparative examination of the multilevel ro-tolerance” policies that discourage such behav- effects of invidious episodes and average envy lev- ior. In such instances, it is possible that instead of els on event-specific and average undermining lev- antisocial responses to envy of others, individuals els over time. are more likely to engage in prosocial, self-im- Second, the nature of social undermining itself provement-focused, or other positive behaviors. may have contributed to the small effect sizes. So- We discuss specific suggestions for future research cial undermining and negative interactions, in gen- on this issue later in this section. eral, typically violate social norms and occur less Estimates suggest lose about $6 frequently than positive interactions (e.g., Duffy et billion per year because of hostile work environ- al., 2002). The means and standard deviations for ments created by behavior such as (Keashly, our undermining measures were quite low, espe- Trott, & MacLean, 1994; Tepper, 2000), cially in the student team sample. The lack of vari- (Pearson, Andersson, & Porath, 2000), and , ance in the operationalizations may have attenu- aggression, and undermining (Giacalone & Green- ated the effect sizes. Although individuals react berg, 1997; Griffin, O’Leary-Kelly, & Collins, 1998a, more strongly to social undermining than to social 1998b; Rayner, Hoel, & Cooper, 2002). Although the support, predicting rare or difficult-to-influence effect sizes in our studies were modest, these mas- dependent variables can be a challenge and, in sive costs suggest that any efforts to curb social such cases, small effects could be considered mean- undermining can have practical value. Our find- ingful (Prentice & Miller, 1992). ings suggest that organizational leaders can take Third, it is also possible that other dimensions of certain actions to help mitigate the undesirable ef- a social environment play a role in facilitating a fects of workplace envy. In particular, our studies social-undermining-based response to invidious underscore that managers should promote profes- comparisons. We find evidence that low social sional and personal camaraderie (e.g., Colquitt, identification and strong norms for undermining Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Such actions exacerbate envy’s effect on social undermining, but may diminish the likelihood that employees will it is also possible that individuals are more likely to experience the moral disengagement that expresses engage in undermining behaviors when they have itself as antisocial behavior. Our results for percep- little fear of retaliation or of being punished for tions of similarity in Study 1 suggest that any at- their acts. Although team undermining norms pro- tempts to identify common bonds among cowork- vide some indication of the likelihood of a tit-for- ers could assuage the tendency for envy to lead to tat response (and results show they increase the moral disengagement. The use of employee affinity likelihood that envy through moral disengagement or interest (e.g., related to photography or music) or will result in undermining), other social context resource (e.g., related to career development or factors, such as low social interdependence and community involvement) groups may increase per- organizational norms regarding the likelihood of ceptions of similarity and curtail the negative ef- being punished for negative behaviors, may also fects of envy. Indeed, Exline and Zell argued that “a play a role. Data constraints prohibited us from focus on any common bond or connection that exploring these possibilities, but to the extent that might facilitate empathy” may help mitigate envy’s these factors may play a role, our modest effect harmful consequences (2008: 325). Exline and Zell sizes could be attributed to their absence from the also suggested that interventions to enhance posi- model. Fourth, it is possible that the nature of our tive feelings toward an envied target may help mit- studies’ contexts—a workplace in Study 1 and uni- igate the negative effects of envy. Within teams, our versity student teams in Study 2—may have played results in Study 2 suggest that increasing team a role. As noted above, a workplace offers numer- identification (for example, through team-building ous opportunities for painful social comparisons sessions, retreats, or friendly team competitions) 660 Academy of Management Journal June may also have an ameliorating effect. Once moral measure of moral disengagement, but it is not im- self-sanctions have been deactivated, the results mune from criticism. In particular, research that suggest that weak norms of undermining may also assesses the potential overlap of the moral disen- derail the process. Organizations may be able to gagement items with measures of other constructs, reinforce weak norms for undermining by institut- such as moral development, is needed. Seventh, we ing zero-tolerance policies for deviance, imple- operationalized envy using a self-report measure menting strict codes of conduct, and providing in- that is intended to reflect individuals’ envy of oth- formation about the costs of social undermining to ers in their work environment. The measure we employee groups (Tepper et al., 2008). used is well-established in the literature, but one could argue that it captures more of a disposition to envy. We did not have any measure of dispositional Limitations envy in our data sets; however, we did control for We have noted several theoretical implications of negative affectivity, which captures the tendency to our findings, but like all studies, ours have limita- experience negative affective states, of which envy tions. One is that a single source provided the data may be one. Nevertheless, we recognize that our in Study 1, which raises concerns about common measure of envy may capture a tendency to feel method bias. This concern may be somewhat miti- envious in many situations and not just those at gated because eight months separated the two work. In addition, the Vecchio (1995) items are waves of data collection; the higher-order interac- indirect in that they refer to a set of envy-inducing tions were not susceptible to common method ef- cognitions without referring to the emotion of envy fects; and Study 2 yielded a similar pattern of re- itself. A number of researchers have taken this ap- sults with a team-level operationalization of social proach because of the potential stigma associated identification. Second, although the replication of with admitting envy, but future research that com- our results across two studies is a step toward es- pares and contrasts alternative operationalizations tablishing the generalizability of our model, we is needed. Eighth, our theory and tests concerned a cannot be certain that these findings generalize to a specific form of antisocial behavior, social under- broader assortment of organizations and contexts. mining. Although undermining can be distin- A third limitation is that our results cannot com- guished at a conceptual level from other forms of pletely rule out causal mechanisms other than the deviance, measures of various antisocial behavior ones we proposed. Our results merely suggest the constructs, including undermining, have been crit- plausible mediation pathways through which envy icized for a lack of precision (Tepper & Henle, leads to undermining, but to make stronger causal 2011). Future validation work on undermining inferences, researchers should use experimental measures and comparative tests of our model ad- designs to manipulate the variables in our model. dressing different forms of antisocial behavior Fourth, as discussed above, the effect sizes in our would be a step forward. studies were modest. Our theory implies that the A final limitation concerns the use of a student relationships between envy and a proximal out- team sample in Study 2. Although our student come—moral disengagement—will be stronger teams share some of the characteristics of work than those with the distal outcome—social under- teams or task forces, the limited duration of their mining—and the findings tended to reflect this. In time together may not have been sufficient for our addition, our theory suggests that because of the constructs (e.g., envy and team norms for under- joint buffering effects of social identification and mining) to develop as fully as they otherwise norms, the main effects of envy on social under- might. To the extent that envy and undermining mining behavior will be modest. were not as prevalent in this context—the descrip- Fifth, although there was significant between- tive statistics for key variables tend to bear this team variance and high within-team agreement for out—our Study 2 results may have been the team social identification and undermining underestimated. norms measures in Study 2, the reliability of team means for these measures was somewhat below Future Research Directions conventional reliability thresholds. Bliese (1998) showed that low ICC2 values are more common Our research raises several important questions when teams are small and also argued that a likely and highlights several avenues for future research. consequence of low team-mean reliability is under- One important question raised by our findings con- estimation of the actual team-level relationships. cerns the role of social identification. If social iden- Additional studies should rectify these measure- tification is likely to increase feelings of envy while ment shortcomings. Sixth, we used an established also neutralizing the propensity to morally disen- 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 661 gage as a result of feeling a greater moral obligation oratory technician may not be envious of the suc- to show concern for the envied party, then should cess of a nurse even when they closely identify we view it as a positive or negative force in the with one another, because the natures of their tasks envy-undermining process? Our answer is that it in their work group are so different. Concerning the can be both. Other theorists have discussed how nature of the medical environment, other studies social identification can be a source of negative as have also shown weaker associations between well as positive behavior. For example, social iden- known correlates (e.g., Judge, Bono, Thoresen, & tification can play a role in motivating out-group Patton, 2001), findings that are attributed to the prejudice and bias while at the same time motivat- prescribed, rule-bound nature of medical work. We ing people to sacrifice on behalf of in-group mem- hope future research will explore this further. bers. Similarly, our results provide evidence that Future research should also consider an alterna- social identification can be a double-edged sword, tive extension of social identification and its influ- because it can both facilitate envy and temper its ence on envy-related reactions. It may be that one deleterious effects. But if envious employees who reason why social identification mitigated the con- are high in social identification chose not to under- version of envy into moral disengagement is that an mine coworkers, what do they do instead? envious employee might believe that whatever ben- One possibility, which we were unable to test efits the person he or she envies is receiving will with our data, is that individuals who are envious eventually come to him or her. This explanation but who are also high in social identification are suggests that social identification may shape indi- more likely to cope with their envy and restore viduals’ expectations about what they are likely to their diminished self-worth by making efforts at receive from an organization, which may temper self-improvement. We mentioned at the beginning the negative consequences of envy, at least in cases of our article that envy can motivate individuals to in which an employee identifies closely with the elevate their performance so that it equals or sur- envied party. Future researchers could explore this passes the levels of envied colleagues. The econo- and other alternative mechanisms for explaining mist Thorstein Veblen noted this motive, suggest- our social identification findings. ing that “the propensity for achievement—the Expanding our model to include a broader array instinct of workmanship—tends more and more to of antecedents of envy and moral disengagement shape itself into a straining to excel others in pecu- would also be a worthwhile endeavor. For exam- niary achievement. Relative success, tested by an ple, related research examining moral decision invidious pecuniary comparison with other men, making and action has shown that many emotions becomes the conventional end of action” (Veblen, (e.g., moral outrage, , disgust) can influence 1979: 33; see also Duffy et al. [2008] and Schau- moral behavior (Eisenberg, 2000; Haidt, 2003; broeck and Lam [2004]). What our model adds to Schweder & Haidt, 1993). Future research could Veblen’s observations about the motivational also examine not only the differential and cumula- power of invidious comparisons is that sometimes tive effects of envy and other “moral emotions” on envious people do not try to excel, but instead try moral disengagement and subsequent behavior but to bring others down. Another possibility, sug- also explore how moral disengagement mecha- gested by an anonymous referee, is that envious nisms contribute to a wider range of antisocial or individuals who identify with their coworkers at- deviant workplace behaviors. For example, to what tempt to improve themselves, perhaps by asking extent does moral disengagement affect an employ- the envied others for advice or attempting to ee’s willingness to engage in illegal practices, lie to strengthen their friendships. What our data suggest customers or other stakeholders, steal from an or- as a possible question for future research is whether ganization, or act violently? social identification might be a key variable that Our studies can also be considered a call for determines which of these paths an envious em- additional research on the antecedents and conse- ployee is likely to take. In addition, in our studies, quences of social undermining. Knowledge in the team identification was positively related to envy literature on social undermining antecedents, like in Study 2, a pattern consistent with prior litera- that in the broader literature on forms of antisocial ture, but social identification assessed at the indi- behavior at work (e.g., [Tep- vidual level was not related to envy in Study 1. per, 2007]), lags far behind knowledge about con- This difference could be study-specific, but per- sequences of these behaviors (see Duffy et al. [2006] haps the occupational of the university and Tepper et al. [2011], for recent exceptions). hospital where we conducted Study 1, or the nature Although our findings indicate that envy can be of medical work itself, weakened the link between used to explain the occurrence of social undermin- social identification and envy. For example, a lab- ing at work, these effects appear under a fairly 662 Academy of Management Journal June narrow set of conditions and may not be as large in Although the high level of homogeneity in our magnitude as has been argued in the literature. Study 2 teams did not allow us to investigate these Given estimates showing substantial costs of social issues, an interesting approach would be to explore undermining for organizations and individuals, how diversity plays a role in the envy, moral dis- predictive models that extend understanding and engagement, and undermining processes outlined can be used as a basis for interventions are greatly in our studies. needed. A novel approach, suggested by an anony- For the last two decades, the relationship be- mous reviewer, would be to explore the potential tween workplace envy and negative interactions for certain positive outcomes associated with social such as social undermining has captured the atten- undermining. Like prior research that has uncov- tion of organizational researchers. The rise in ered negative outcomes associated with positive scholarly attention led to the need for theoretical behaviors and dispositions (e.g., Duffy, Ganster, & advancement and the identification of a mediating Shaw, 1998), research on social undermining could mechanism that links these two constructs. The be useful to the extent it identifies those who are current study contributes to this line of research by not conforming to social norms or provides infor- integrating social cognitive, social identification, mation that is useful for an individual in the work- and social norms theories to demonstrate that place. Along these lines, Baumeister, Zhang, and moral disengagement mediates the envy—social Vohs argued that, despite its prevailing negative undermining relationship and to outline the social- effects, gossip (a traditional marker of undermining context-based conditions under which this mediat- behavior) can be useful when it “helps people learn ing relationship holds. As such, this study contrib- about how to function effectively within the com- utes to a more comprehensive understanding of plex and ambiguous structures of human social invidious emotions, the antecedents of social un- (and cultural) life” (2004: 120). dermining, and the conditions under which these An additional direction for future research con- important constructs are related. cerns the role of descriptive versus injunctive forms of team undermining norms. As both our and Jacobson et al.’s (2011) results show, the combina- REFERENCES tion of self-regulatory depletion and strong descrip- Alicke, M. A., & Zell, E. 2008. Social comparison and tive norms—the typicality of a given behavior in envy. In R. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and research: asocial environment—appears to be a potent com- 73–93. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Press. bination for predicting behavior that serves an in- Aquino, K., Reed, A., II, Thau, S., & Freeman, D. 2007. A dividual’s self-interest. In contrast, when self-regu- grotesque and dark beauty: How the self-importance latory functions are depleted, injunctive norms are of moral identity and the mechanisms of moral dis- argued to be bellwethers for behaviors that are as- engagement influence cognitive and emotional reac- sociated with social approval and long-term social tions to war. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- relations in situations. Although we are unable to chology, 43: 385–392. test this possibility here, researchers could use Bamberger, P., & Biron, M. 2007. Social comparison and these ideas and Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno’s : Explaining the impact of referent (1991) focus theory of normative conduct to de- norms on employee excessive absenteeism. Organi- velop differential predictions about the joint effects zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, of envy, moral disengagement, and different types 103: 179–196. of norms for antisocial behavior in organizations. A final direction that holds considerable promise Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, for envy researchers is in the area of social compar- NJ: Prentice Hall. isons. As Duffy et al. (2008) pointed out, relatively few studies have examined relationships between Bandura, A. 1991. Social cognitive theory of moral social comparison processes and the organizational thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gerwitz factors that facilitate or inhibit them. An extension (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and develop- of our model to include organizational factors and ment, vol. 1: 45–103. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. social comparison processes explicitly would be a Bandura, A. 1999. Moral disengagement in the perpetra- major step toward understanding the interplay of tion of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psy- social comparisons and organizational factors. Fi- chology Review, 3: 193–209. nally, our theory and results may also have impli- Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. cations for diversity research. Researchers have 1996. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the shown that work group identification is often lower exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality in diverse groups (Stewart & Garcia-Prieto, 2008). and Social Psychology, 71: 364–374. 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 663

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G., Pastorelli, C., & Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. 2008. Moral Regalia, C. 2001. Sociocognitive self-regulatory disengagement in ethical decision making: A study mechanisms governing transgressive behavior. Jour- of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 364– Psychology, 93: 374–391. 374. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social Baumeister, R. F., Zhang, L., & Vohs, K. D. 2004. Gossip undermining at work. Academy of Management as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, Journal, 45: 331–351. 8: 111–121. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Shaw, J. D. 1998. Positive Berger, J., & Rand, L. 2008. Shifting signals to help health: affectivity and negative outcomes: The role of tenure Using identity signaling to reduce risky health be- and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, haviors. Journal of Consumer Research, 35: 509– 83: 950–959. 418. Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., Shaw, J. D., Johnson, J. L., & Bliese, P. D. 1998. Group size, ICC values, and group- Pagon, M. 2006. The social context of undermining level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Re- behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Hu- search Methods, 1: 355–373. man Decision Processes, 101: 105–121. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., & Dukerich, J. M. 2001. Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. 2000. The Salieri syndrome: Collective corruption in the corporate world: To- Consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Re- ward a process model. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups search, 31: 3–23. at work: Theory and research: 471–499. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., & Schaubroeck, J. M. 2008. Envy in organizational life. In R. Smith (Ed.), Envy: The- Brockner, J. 1990. Scope of justice in the workplace: How survivors react to co-workers layoffs. Journal of So- ory and research: 167–189. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford cial Issues, 46: 95–106. Press. Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Wil- Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., & Stark, E. M. 2000. Perfor- liams, J. 1986. Explaining intergroup differentiation mance and satisfaction in conflicted, interdependent in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupa- groups: When (and how) does self-esteem make a tional Psychology, 59: 273–286. difference? Academy of Management Journal, 43: 772–784. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C . A., & Reno, R. R. 1991. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical re- Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. 2004. Invidious compar- finement and re-evaluation. Advances in Experi- isons and insidious behaviors. Paper presented at mental Social Psychology, 24: 201–234. the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Honolulu. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gil- Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. 2006. Green and mean: Envy bert, S. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of and social undermining in organizations. In A. Ten- social psychology (4th ed.), vol. 2: 151–192. New brunsel (Ed.), Research on managing groups and York: McGraw-Hill. teams: Ethics in groups, vol. 8: 177–197. London: Elsevier. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. 2003. Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality Dutton, J., & Heaphy, E. 2003. The power of high-quality and Social Psychology Review, 7: 298–310. connections. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Cohen-Charash, Y. 2009. Episodic envy. Journal of Ap- Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: plied Social Psychology, 39: 2128–2173. Foundations of a new discipline: 263–278. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. 2007. Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate counterproductive Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for inte- interpersonal work behaviors related to envy? Jour- grating moderation and mediation: A general analyt- nal of Applied Psychology, 92: 666–680. ical framework using moderated path analysis. Psy- chological Methods, 12: 1–22. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2005. What is organizational justice? A historical overview Eisenberg, N. 2000. Emotion, regulation, and moral de- of the field. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), velopment. In S. T. Fiske, D. F. Schacter, & C. Zahn- The handbook of organizational justice: 3–56. Wexler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology, vol. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 51: 665–697. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Crossley, C. 2009. Emotional and behavioral reactions to Exline, J . J., & Zell, A . L. 2008. Antidotes to envy: A social undermining: A closer look at perceived of- conceptual framework. In R. Smith (Ed.), Envy: The- fender motives. Organizational Behavior and Hu- ory and research: 315–334. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford man Decision Processes, 108: 14–24. Press. 664 Academy of Management Journal June

Giacalone, R., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior perceived . Journal of Personality in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. and Social Psychology, 59: 337–343. Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A., & Collins, J. M. 1998a. Lieberman, M. D., & Eisenberger, N. I. 2009. Pains and Dysfunctional work behaviors in organizations. In pleasures of social life. Neuroscience, 13: 890–891. C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior, vol. 5: 65–82. New York: Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. 2008. Interpersonal Wiley. similarity as a social distance dimension: Implica- tions for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Griffin, R. W., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., & Collins, J. M. Experimental Social Psychology, 44: 1256–1269. 1998b. Dysfunctional work behaviors in organiza- tions: Violent and deviant behavior. Monographs in McFerran, B., Aquino, K., & Duffy, M. K. 2010. Individual organizational behavior and industrial relations, predictors of the commitment to integrity: The role 23. Stamford, CT: JAI. of personality and moral identity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1): 35–56. Hackman, J. R. 1992. Group influences on individuals and organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organiza- (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational tional justice and organizational citizenship behav- psychology, vol. 3: 199–267. Palo Alto, CA: Consult- iors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee cit- ing Psychologists Press. izenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845– 855. Haidt, J. 2003. The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. 1993. Justice as a me- of affective sciences: 852–870. Oxford, U.K.: Ox- diator of the relationship between methods of mon- ford University Press. itoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 527–556. Harris, L. T., Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. 2008. Envy, as predicted by the stereotype model: A volatile ambiv- Opotow, S. 1990. Moral exclusion and injustice: An in- alence. In R. Smith (Ed.), Envy: Theory and re- troduction. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 1–20. search: 133–147. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford Press. Opotow, S. 1995. Drawing the line: Social categorization, Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. 2000. The moral exclusion, and the scope of justice. In B. B. application of hierarchical linear modeling to organ- Bunker & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Conflict, cooperation, izational research. InK.J.Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski and justice: Essays inspired by the work of Morton (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in Deutsch: 347–369. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. organizations: 467–511. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Opotow, S. 2001. Reconciliation in times of impunity: Hogg, M. A. 2000. Social identity and social comparison. Challenges for social justice. Social Justice Re- In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.), Handbook of social search, 14: 149–170. comparison: Theory and research: 401–421. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. 1993. Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Person- Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identifications: ality and Social Psychology, 64: 906–920. A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge. Pearson, C., Andersson, L., & Porath, C. 2000. Assessing and attacking . Organizational Jacobson, R. P., Mortensen, C. R., & Cialdini, R. B. 2011. Dynamics, 29(2): 123–137. Bodies obliged and unbound: Differentiated re- sponse tendencies for injunctive and descriptive so- Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. 1992. When small effects cial norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112: 160– chology, 100: 433–448. 164. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. 2002. Hierarchical within-group interrater reliability with and without linear models: Applications and data analysis response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 85–98. Rayner, C., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. 2002. Workplace Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Thoresen, C. J., & Patton, G. K. bullying: What we know, who is to blame, and 2001. The -job performance relation- what can we do? London: Taylor & Francis. ship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psycho- Reed, A., II, & Aquino, K. F. 2003. Moral identity and the logical Bulletin, 127: 376–407. expanding circle of moral regard towards out- Keashly, L., Trott, V., & Maclean, L. M. 1994. Abusive groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- behavior in the workplace: A preliminary investiga- ogy, 84: 1270–1286. tion. Violence and Victims, 9: 341–357. Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. 1998. Monkey Lakey, B., & Cassidy, P. B. 1990. Cognitive processes in see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the 2012 Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper, and Aquino 665

antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Man- Tepper, B. J., Henle, C. A., Lambert, L. S., Giacalone, agement Journal, 41: 641–658. R. A., & Duffy, M. K. 2008. Abusive supervision and subordinates’ organization deviance. Journal of Ap- Salmivalli, C. 2001. Feeling good about oneself and being plied Psychology, 93: 721–732. bad to others: Remarks on self-esteem, hostility, and aggressive behavior. Aggressive and Violent Behav- Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organi- ior, 6: 375–393. zations: Review, synthesis and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33: 261–289. Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. 1984. Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison jealousy. Jour- Tepper, B. J., & Henle, C. A. 2011. The case for recogniz- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 780– ing distinctions among constructs that capture inter- 792. personal mistreatment in work organizations. Jour- Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S. S. K. 2004. Comparing lots nal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 487–498. before and after: Promotion rejectees invidious reac- Tepper, B. J., Moss, S., & Duffy, M. K. 2011. Antecedents tions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and of abusive supervision: perceptions of Human Decision Processes, 94: 33–47. deep-level dissimilarity, relationship conflict, and Schmidt, S. 2009. Shall we really do it again? The pow- subordinate performance. Academy of Manage- erful concept of replication is neglected in the social ment Journal, 54: 279–294. science. Review of General Psychology, 13: 90– Tepper, B. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. 100. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 178–190. Schweder, R., & Haidt, J. 1993. Commentary to feature Tesser, A. 1988. Toward a self-evaluation maintenance review: The future of moral psychology: Truth, intu- model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Ad- ition, and the pluralist way. Psychological Science, vances in experimental social psychology, vol. 21: 4: 360–365. 181–127. San Diego: Emerald. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimen- Turner, J. C. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the tal and nonexperimental studies: New procedures social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7: intergroup relations: 15–40. Cambridge, U.K.: Cam- 422–445. bridge University Press. Silver, M., & Sabini, J. 1978. The perception of envy. Turner, J. C. 1991. Social influence. Buckingham, U.K.: Social Psychology Quarterly, 41: 105–117. Open University Press. Smith, R. H. 2004. Envy and its transumutations. In L. Z. van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, Tiedens & C. W. Leach (Eds.), The social life of M., & Gallucci, M. 2006. When people fall from emotions: 43–63. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge Uni- grace: Reconsidering the role of envy in Schaden- versity Press. freude. Emotion, 6: 156–160. Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. 2007. Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 46–64. Veblen, T. 1979. The theory of the leisure class. Middle- sex, U.K.: Penguin. Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S . H. 1999. Dispositional envy. Personality Vecchio, R. P. 1995. It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1007–1021. and envy in the workplace. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13: 201–244. Smith, R. 2000. Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward social compari- Vecchio, R. P. 1999. Jealousy and envy among health care sons. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler (Eds.). Handbook of professionals. In P. LeBlanc, M. Peters, A. Bussing & social comparison: Theory and research: 173–200. W. Schauefli (Eds.), Organizational psychology and New York: Plenum. health care: 121–132. Munich: Verlag. Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological in Vecchio, R. P. 2000. Employee jealousy and envy. Inter- the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and vali- national Journal of Stress Management, 7: 161– dation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 179. 1442–1465. Vecchio, R. P. 2005. Explorations in employee envy: Staub, E. 1989. The roots of evil. New York: Cambridge Feeling envious and feeling envied. Cognition and University Press. Emotion, 19: 69–81. Stewart, M. M., & Garcia-Prieto, P. 2008. A relational Vecchio, R. P. 2007. Cinderella and Salieri in the work- demography model of workgroup identification: place: The envied and the envier. In S. W. Gilliland, Testing the effects of race, race dissimilarity, racial D. D. L. Steiner & D. Skarlicki (Eds.), Managing identification and communication. Journal of Or- social and ethical issues in organizations: 109– ganizational Behavior, 29: 657–680. 134. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. 666 Academy of Management Journal June

Vidaillet, B. 2006. Les ravages de l’envie au travail Kristin L. Scott ([email protected]) is an assistant [The ravages of envy at work]. Paris: Editions professor in the College of Business and Behavioral Sci- d’Organisation Eyrolles. ence at Clemson University. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Kentucky. Her current research inter- Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Develop- ests include workplace exclusion and dysfunctional or- ment and validation of brief measures of positive ganizational behavior, employee rewards and motiva- and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of tion, and group dynamics. Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070. Jason D. Shaw ([email protected]) is a professor and Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. 2004. A social comparison the Curtis L. Carlson School–wide Professor in the Carl- account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8: son School of Management at the University of Minne- 122–137. sota. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Arkan- sas. His current research interests include Wheeless, R., Wheeless, V. E., & Dickson-Markman, F. systems, , financial incentives, and work team 1978. The relations among social and task percep- effectiveness. tions in small groups. Small Group Behavior, 13: 373–384. Bennett J. Tepper ([email protected]) is a professor of managerial sciences in the J. Mack Robinson College of Wood, J. V. 1996. What is social comparison and how Business at Georgia State University. He received his should we study it? Personality and Social Psychol- Ph.D. in organizational psychology from the University ogy Bulletin, 22: 520–537. of Miami. His current research interests include leader- ship, behavioral ethics, and psychological well-being. Karl Aquino ([email protected]) is the Richard Poon Professor of Business and Society at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia. Michelle K. Duffy ([email protected]) is a professor and He conducts research on moral functioning, workplace the Board of Overseers Professor of Work and Organiza- victimization, revenge and forgiveness in organizations, tions in the Carlson School of Management at the Uni- and the effects of power and status on social perception. versity of Minnesota. She received her Ph.D. from the He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from University of Arkansas. Her current research interests Northwestern University. include social undermining, moral disengagement, and affect and emotions at work. Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.