220 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
Malicious Envy at Work: Causes and Responses
Patty Malone & John Daly
Envy often arises in the workplace with potentially negative consequences.
Using affective events theory as a framework we examine the causes of
malicious envy in the workplace and the communicative responses people
have to experiencing the emotion. We discover seven major causes for
malicious envy in the workplace and nine typical responses in the ways in
which people in the workplace respond to their feelings of malicious envy.
nvy is a common and unpleasant emotion in the workplace.
Miner (1990) found that 77 percent of employees observed
situations involving envious feelings at work and 58 percent had been
directly involved in such situations. Consequences of envy are
associated with employees’ inclination to quit (Vecchio 2000),
socially loaf, experience less group cohesiveness, and reduce group
performance (Duffy & Shaw, 2000). People experiencing envy are
more likely to exhibit harmful behavior such as backstabbing,
sabotaging work, and hurting reputations toward those they envy,
which in turn can negatively impact the organization (Cohen-Charash
& Mueller, 2007). Envy can also lead to harmful physical results for
those who experience it (Smith, Combs, & Thielke, 2008).
In explaining the dynamics of envy, research focuses on things
such as the relationship between envy and individual differences
(e.g., self-esteem, Machiavellianism) (Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle,
& Kim, 1999; Vecchio, 2000), work outcomes (Vecchio, 2000),
group effectiveness (Duffy & Shaw, 2000), and social comparison
(Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004). Other studies approach envy by
including it with jealousy (Vecchio, 1995), and examining
dispositional envy rather than episodic or situational envy (Smith et
al., 1999). Research further indicates that envy in the workplace
frequently results in harmful outcomes, on the personal as well as the
organizational level (Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Vecchio, 1995, 2000).
Most of the previous research is theoretical and conceptual and
does not include many empirical studies (except see Cohan-Charash,
2000; Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Vecchio,
2000). There is especially a dearth of empirical studies focusing on
E
Patty Malone (Ph. D. University of Texas, Austin) is an Assistant Professor
at California State University Fullerton. John Daly (Ph.D., Purdue
University) is Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Texas
at Austin. This manuscript was derived from a Ph.D. dissertation by the first
author under the direction of Dr. Daly. An earlier version of the manuscript
was presented to the Organizational Communication Division at the
National Communication Association Convention in San Diego (2008).
Correspondence should be sent to the first author at [email protected].
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 221
causes of envy and responses to envy. None of the previous
scholarship is framed in the context of communication, yet clearly
communication plays a vital role in both how envy is elicited and in
reactions people have to the experience of envy. Guerrero, Andersen,
Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy (1995) provide a model of how to
approach envy from a communication perspective through the use of
a typology of communicative responses to jealousy. While there is
some overlap with possible responses to envy (e.g., vented
frustration, tried to talk), many of their categories apply specifically
to jealousy and not envy (e.g., looked through partner’s belongings,
tried to prove love for partner). The purpose of the current research is
to examine causes of episodic malicious envy and responses to
malicious envy in the workplace from a communication perspective.
Malicious envy is ubiquitous in the workplace, with frequent harmful
impacts on the employees and the organizations.
Review of the Literature
Envy Versus Jealousy
Envy is an emotion arising when people desire possessions,
attributes, or attainments that another person is perceived to possess
(Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Salovey & Rodin,
1984). While frequently confounded with jealousy, there are
important conceptual distinctions between the two emotions (Parrott,
1991). Envy involves one person desiring what another has (e.g.,
possessions, attributes, attainments) while jealousy arises when
someone senses a threat to a valued relationship with another person
(Smith, Kim, & Parrott, 1988). Envy occurs when the achievements,
qualities, or possessions of another are perceived as a negative
reflection on the self in comparison (Parrott, 1991) while jealousy is
characterized by fear of loss of a relationship (Parrott & Smith,
1993). Envy is more associated with inferiority and self-criticism
while jealousy is more tied to rejection and feelings of loss
(Guerrero, Trost, & Yoshimura, 2005; White & Mullen, 1989).
Benign Versus Malicious Envy
Benign envy occurs when envious people do not view the
envied other’s prosperity with displeasure, and may even view the
other’s prosperity with pleasure. Benign envy consists of admiration
for another, which may even serve as inspiration (Parrott, 1991).
Malicious envy occurs when envious people view the other’s
prosperity with displeasure and wish the envied person did not
possess the desired attributes (Parrott & Smith, 1993). Thus, envy
that is malicious reflects feelings of not only “I wish I had what you
have,” but “I wish you did not have what you have” (Bedeian, 1995,
p.51).
222 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
Malicious envy contains elements of hostility, resentment,
anger, and a sense of unfairness or injustice (Parrott & Smith, 1993;
Salovey & Rodin, 1986). Research indicates envy, unfairness, and
hostility are separate constructs (Duffy, Shaw, & Schaubroeck,
2008), yet without a sense of injustice and the accompanying
hostility, envy remains benign and does not turn malicious (Smith,
1991; Smith et al., 1999; Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994). The
hostile aspect of envy arises with a perception of injustice as the
distinguishing feature of malicious envy (Smith, 1991), especially
when the envious person believes the envied person has an unfair
advantage. What separates malicious envy from pure hostility is the
perception that an injustice has occurred. The perceived sense of
injustice and an unfair advantage may only exist for the person who
feels envious and not as an objective reality shared by others. Smith
(1991) argues that in cases where there is an obvious injustice the
subject will likely express feelings of hostility because the hostility is
considered legitimate and will appear valid in the eyes of an
objective observer. The feeling of hostility associated with envy has
an unsanctioned quality that is subjective, personal, and lacks social
validation (Parrott, 1993). If this private hostility were expressed it
would appear inappropriate and invalid to others. Thus, hostility
resulting from a subjective perceived “illegitimate” injustice arising
with envy remains private and is a key distinguishing feature of envy,
while an obvious case of unfair treatment results in pure hostility
(Smith, 1991; Smith, et al., 1994). If the perceived injustice was
validated by others, then the resulting emotion could be considered
pure hostility, not envy (Smith et al., 1994, 1999, 2008). Further,
harmful responses are more likely when the envious person perceives
the envied other has an unfair advantage (Duffy et al., 2008). In
addition to feelings of unfair treatment and hostility, people
experiencing malicious envy may also report feelings of personal
inferiority, poor self-esteem (Parrott, 1991; Parrott & Smith, 1993)
and social threat (Vecchio, 2000).
Affective Events Theory and Malicious Envy
Affective Events Theory (AET) examines causes and
consequences of emotion at work and the connection between
emotions and subsequent behavior (Glomb, Steel, & Arvey, 2002;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). “Things happen to people in work
settings and people often react emotionally to these events. These
affective experiences have direct influences on behavior and
attitudes” (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996, p.11). Drawing from
Lazarus’ (1966) cognitive appraisal approach to emotion, AET
suggests events occurring in the workplace generate emotional
reactions that in turn influence work-related attitudes and behaviors
(Basch & Fisher, 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Lazarus (1966)
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 223
contends that while every event has the potential for emotional
impact, only those events that affect the individual’s well-being
generate emotions. Thus, positive emotions arise in association with
an event that facilitates the individual’s goals and interests, while
negative emotions arise when an event is viewed as an obstacle to the
individual’s goals and interests. An incident occurs, which stimulates
the appraisal process, and the resulting interpretation determines the
emotion. According to AET, an affective event is an incident that
triggers an appraisal of a job related event and the subsequent
emotional reaction to that event (Basch & Fisher, 2000). Different
emotions are associated with different behavioral responses. In
general, negative affective events lead to negative emotions on the
job, while positive affective events result in positive emotions on the
job (Glomb et al., 2002; Lord & Kanfer, 2002). Using the AET
model, a trigger event at the workplace (appraised as an obstacle)
elicits malicious envy (affect), a blend of negative emotions, which is
followed by subsequent negative responses (behavior), such as
denigrating the other or engaging in dysfunctional work behavior
(Vecchio, 2000). For example, a coworker gets the promotion
another person expected, the envious person experiences the feelings
of malicious envy, and chooses to respond in a negative way, such as
spreading rumors about the person, or denigrating him/her to others.
Since we are interested in specific causes that trigger malicious envy
in the workplace and the subsequent communicative responses to the
emotion, AET provides an appropriate framework for our research.
Research Questions
While there is clear evidence in past research that malicious
envy has negative consequences, there are few empirical studies that
directly address the specific causes of malicious envy in the
workplace. Vecchio (1995, 2000) conducted studies that suggest
possible causes, but do not address specific triggers of envy in the
workplace. Vecchio (1995) first conducted a preliminary study that
indicated employees reported higher levels of envy of supervisors
who were viewed as low in consideration and out-group members
also reported higher degrees of envy of their coworkers. Vecchio
(2000) also found employee envy was positively correlated with
competitive reward systems and negatively correlated with worker
autonomy. These studies are focused on broader areas such as
personal response variables, individual differences, and work
attributes, rather than specific causes. We are interested in finding out
what people identify as precise triggers in the workplace that cause
episodic envy.
While individual and situational causes are possible given
some people may dispositionally be more sensitive to events where
envy arises (e.g. Buunk, 1982; Pines & Friedman, 1998) we are more
224 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
narrowly interested in situational or episodic causes of malicious
envy. We suppose situations that highlight the relative contributions
of people, create inequitable decisions (e.g., inequity, favoritism),
and engender a sense of task inadequacy may be relevant precursors
to malicious envy.
RQ1: What prompts people to feel malicious envy in the
workplace?
It is equally important to understand how people respond to
negative emotions such as envy in the workplace because their
responses can affect how they interact with others as well as
workplace productivity (Vecchio, 1995; 2000). Research indicates
employees tend to respond negatively to their feelings of envy and
are likely to direct harmful behavior toward those they envy and
toward the organization. Vecchio (2000) found that envy was
associated with employees’ inclination to quit. Duffy and Shaw
(2000) studied envy in groups and found that envy was positively
associated with social loafing and negatively associated with group
cohesiveness and group performance. Cohen-Charash (2000) found
that envious people were more likely to exhibit harmful behavior
toward the person they envied, such as sabotaging the other person’s
work or reputation, and being uncooperative. Other research suggests
envious people may express their feelings of envy by attempting to
prevent their rival’s successful performance via sabotage and
backstabbing (Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Vecchio, 2000). Additionally,
envy may lead to derogation of the envied other’s achievements
(Silver & Sabini, 1978; Smith et al., 1994), personal unhappiness
(Smith & Kim, 2007), and lower job satisfaction (Vecchio, 2000).
These negative expressions of envy are harmful on the interpersonal
level as well as counter-productive to efficient organizational
operation (Duffy & Shaw, 2000; Vecchio, 2000). Harmful responses
to envy may have consequences for supervisor-employee relations
(Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007), task performance, morale
(Cohen-Charash, 2000, Duffy & Shaw, 2000), and ultimately
business outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007). What is
missing in this line of research is a typological model that organizes
the communicative responses to malicious envy in the workplace. In
line with Guerrero et al. (1995), communicative responses are
“behavioral reactions that carry communicative value and have the
potential to fulfill individual or relational goals” (p. 272).
RQ2: How do employees respond when they feel malicious
envy in the workplace?
Methods Stage One
We used a two-stage process. In Stage One, we inductively
came to understand the causes for malicious envy in the workplace
and likely responses to it. In Stage Two, we used a questionnaire
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 225
based on Stage One to examine causes of malicious envy and
responses to it in the workplace.
Participants
Two hundred ninety people responded to a survey about a time
they personally experienced envy in the workplace. Nineteen were
excluded due to incomplete responses or inappropriate attention to
the instructions. The final sample consisted of 271 respondents. One
hundred and fifty-six (58%) were female and 115 (42%) were male.
The median age was 32 (M = 34.21, SD = 11.52) with a range of 17
to 65. The sample was drawn from a combination of graduate
students enrolled at a large Southern university who had prior work
experience and individuals working in several large organizations.
One of the authors contacted graduate student organizations in a
business school, local business organizations, and community groups
soliciting participants. Surveys along with stamped addressed
envelopes to return the surveys were distributed among graduate
classes across campus with the department chairs’ permissions. A
research team attended a variety of company business meetings,
networking functions, and business association meetings after
obtaining permission from those in charge and distributed the surveys
to those participants as well. The goal of this sampling process was to
obtain a wide variety of people who had worked in a number of
different organizations at various levels. Participants ranged from
entry-level retail salespeople to chief executive officers from a
variety of organizational types.
Procedures and Analysis
Participants were first asked to write a brief essay in response to
the prompt: “Describe a time when you felt envious of someone in a
work setting. What happened?” Then using the event described in the
essay, respondents were asked to write answers to two questions: (a)
“What do you think caused the feelings of envy?” and (b) “How did
you respond to the envious feelings?” Using an open-ended prompt
asking people to recall a time they had experienced an emotion is
common in research on jealousy and envy (Parrott & Smith, 1993) as
well as other emotions (e.g., Vangelisti, Daly, & Rudnick, 1991).
Responses to the two questions related to the causes of and the
responses to envy were categorized through inductive analysis
(Bulmer, 1979) by two coders. Before coding causes and responses,
coders divided participants’ descriptions on the basis of whether they
focused on a case of benign or malicious envy. If the envy described
did not contain an element of hostility, resentment, or anger, it was
considered to be benign. The coders held several training sessions,
coded data together, and revised the coding schemes. They then
independently coded data. Twenty-five percent of the surveys were
226 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
double-coded to obtain the reliability estimate, which was .94 using
Holsti’s (1969) coefficient. Thirty-one percent of respondents
reported benign envy and those responses were eliminated from the
sample. Interestingly, when people are asked to recall a time they felt
envious, more than two-thirds remember an experience that
engendered malicious envy.
Next, the coders independently developed category schemes for
causes of malicious envy and communicative responses to malicious
envy. The coders defined each category and gave examples of each.
Some categories were collapsed and some were eliminated. After
coding schemes were developed for causes of malicious envy and
communicative responses to malicious envy, each coder unitized
category units represented by each respondent’s descriptions. Coders
unitized several surveys together to agree on the unitizing schemes
and then independently unitized 25% of the questionnaires.
Reliability on the unitization was .94 for causes of malicious envy
and .96 for responses to malicious envy using Holsti’s (1969)
coefficient. Then, another 25% of the malicious envy questionnaires
were further coded into the categories the coders had developed.
Reliability was .95 using Holsti’s (1969) coefficient.
The purpose of generating the categories was to inductively
discover reasons for people experiencing malicious envy in the
workplace and the major types of responses people had when they
experienced that envy. Some of the most common causes were
injustice and inequity (“The other person was treated better than I
was”), a sense by the envious employee that she or he felt he or she
deserved what a coworker received (“I worked harder than him and
deserved it more”), that the other person was favored (“The boss
played favorites”), and negative feelings about themselves (“My own
inadequacy and lack of expertise”). These types of elicitors fit nicely
with prior work. For instance, research consistently alludes to the role
of perceived injustice or unfairness in malicious envy (e.g., Smith et
al., 1999) validating the important role of perceived equity in the
workplace (Greenberg, 1990, 1998; Huseman, Hatfield, & Miles,
1987; Smith, 1991). Other research suggests a sense of inferiority
(e.g., White & Mullen, 1989) generates envy. However, some
relatively unexplored causes were also described. For instance, some
respondents suggested their envious feelings were due to another
taking credit for something they had done. Others highlighted times
where another employee had a stronger personal relationship with
managers. While these types of behaviors have been studied in
research on organizational politics, they have not been examined in
terms of envy.
Some of the more common categories for responses to
malicious envy included: ignoring the situation (“Nothing I could
do”), suppressing feelings (“I bottled it up”), complaining to others
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 227
(“I complained to the manager”), harassing (“I controlled the
information stream to keep him out of the loop”), avoiding the envied
other (“I minimized contact”), and quitting the job (“I gave notice”).
The response categories were similar to what prior research found.
For example, studies have shown that when people experience
malicious envy they behave badly towards the target (CohenCharash, 2000), perform more poorly at work (Duffy & Shaw, 2000),
and experience negative self-thoughts (Smith & Kim, 2007). We
again, however, found some new responses such as confronting
managers, suppressing feelings, and ignoring targets.
Methods Stage Two
Based on the findings in Stage One, a second survey was
conducted with a new sample using Likert scales developed based on
the responses to the open ended questions about causes and responses
to malicious envy in Stage One.
Participants
Four hundred forty-four people responded to the survey. Fifteen
respondents were excluded who had no experience with malicious
envy or they did not follow the instructions. The final sample
consisted of 429 respondents. Two hundred seventy-five (64%) were
female and 152 (36%) were male. (Two did not specify their gender).
All had work experience. The median age was 25 (M = 31.37, SD =
13.04) with a range of 18 to 80. Participants were drawn from
numerous sources including public and private organizations,
associations and business networks using a snowball method to
solicit additional respondents (Atkinson & Flint, 2001; Bulmer,
1979). Job titles ranged from entry-level restaurant workers to
company chief executive officers. A research team attended
numerous business functions and association meetings where they
were allowed to solicit participants after obtaining permission from
those in charge. Respondents completed a pen-and-paper
questionnaire that was mailed or handed to them. We intentionally
chose these methods to ensure that episodes of envy were not tied to
one particular firm or type of organization.
Procedures and Measures
Participants were first asked to respond to an open-ended
question, which served as a prompt for them to recall a time when
they felt malicious envy in the workplace:
“Describe a time when you felt envious of someone in a work
setting. By envious, we mean you wanted what someone else
had and felt some degree of unfairness, anger, resentment, or
hostility. What happened?”
228 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
After reading this prompt, each participant wrote a description of the
event that provoked his or her envy. Participants then completed a
series of measures related to that experience. To control for order
effects, five different arrangements of the measures were distributed.
No order effects were found in subsequent analyses.
Degree of envy. Respondents completed four items measuring
the degree of envy they felt in the recalled situation. The first item on
a 9-point scale was “To what degree did you feel envious about the
situation?” anchored by “not at all” and “very much.” We chose a 9point scale to get greater variation in responses. The next three items
were designed by the authors to conceptually represent the
experience of envy: “I wanted what the other person received;” “I felt
I should have received what the other person received;” and “I felt I
deserved what the other person received.” These three items on 5point scales were anchored by “very little” and “very strongly.” The
four items were combined to create a single measure of Degree of
Envy. After adjusting for the relative number of scale response
options (via z-scores), the four items were combined to create a
single measure of Degree of Envy (α = .82).
Degree of malicious envy. We devised a measure of malicious
envy asking respondents to complete three questions related to their
feelings about the situation: (“To what degree did you feel anger
about the situation;” “To what degree did you feel resentment about
the situation;” and “To what degree did you feel hostility about the
situation?”). These items were 9-point Likert-type scales anchored by
“not at all” and “very much.” The three items were combined to form
a measure of maliciousness ( = .88). Principal components analysis
revealed a single factor solution for the measure of maliciousness. To
create a single index of episodic malicious envy we multiplied each
Degree of Envy response by maliciousness scores to create a single
weighted measure of Degree of Malicious Envy. Rather than
measuring just Degree of Envy or maliciousness, combining the two
created a single measure for Degree of Malicious Envy.
Perceived causes. Drawing from the work in Stage One, we
created thirty-four 7-point Likert-type scales (bounded by “strongly
disagree” and “strongly agree”) to tap into the different types of
causes people reported for envy. For example, one respondent said,
“I had a justifiable righteous indignation at withdrawn promises
given to someone else.” This statement was rewritten for the item to
read: “I was envious because management promised me something
and gave it to someone else.” Two or more items were constructed to
measure each of the most commonly occurring categories. This
measure included categories such as: “I was envious because the
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 229
situation was unfair;” “The person I was envious of received a
promotion that I wanted;” and “The person I was envious of had
better skills than I did.” After the items were constructed, we
reviewed responses from the first phase to make sure we had not
missed any substantive category.
Responses to malicious envy. We created forty-eight 7-point
Likert-type scales to tap responses to malicious envy developed from
responses to the open-ended questions in Stage One. For example,
one respondent in Stage One said, “I avoided the person like the
plague.” The rewritten item in the questionnaire for Stage Two said,
“I avoided the person I envied.” These items were each anchored by
“strongly disagree” and “strongly agree.” This measure included such
categories as: “I complained to my manager about the situation;” “I
quit my job after this incident;” and “I ignored the situation.” At least
two items were constructed to measure each of the major
communicative response categories. Again, we used an iterative
process to assure ourselves that we incorporated all of the major
categories participants suggested.
Results
An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 34-item
Causes of Malicious Envy measure to identify underlying
dimensions. Data were subjected to a principal components analysis
using varimax rotation. Results were assessed using a minimum
eigen-value of one and scree plots. Using a conservative standard, an
item was considered to load meaningfully on a factor when it loaded
at least .60 on that factor with no loading on any other factor being
greater than .40. Seven of the original items were dropped due to low
factor loadings. A seven-factor solution accounting for 69.4% of the
variance emerged in the analysis as expected (See Table 1).
Exploratory factor analysis was used since we entered the project
without any hypotheses and viewed the project as an initial attempt to
understand malicious envy.
The first factor (a) was labeled Inadequate. Six items loaded on
this factor, including statements such as “I was envious because I was
insecure,” and “I felt envious because of my own inadequacy.” The
second factor (b) was labeled Deserved. Five items loaded on this
factor, including items such as “The person I was envious of did not
deserve what he/she received. I deserved it” and “I was envious
because I did a better job than the other person, yet she/he reaped the
rewards.” The third factor (c) was labeled Favorites. Five items
loaded on this factor, including such statements as “I was envious
because the boss played favorites,” and “I was envious because the
other person was favored.” The fourth factor (d) was labeled Credit.
Three items loaded on this factor, including items such as “The
Iowa Journal of Communication
230 Malone & Daly
Table 1:
Stage Two: Results of Principal Component Factor
Analysis for Causes of Malicious Envy
8. The person I was envious of had better skills
than I did.
26. I was envious of the other person’s abilities.
4. I felt envious because of my low selfesteem.
23. I was envious because I lacked certain
skills.
7. I felt envious because of my own
inadequacy.
15. I was envious because I was insecure.
-.11
.69
.76
.80
.81
.83
.83
.79
.80
-.21
-.16
.08
-.12
-.06
.01
.06
.08
.12
.04
.06
.10
.04
.05
.13
.20
.21
.16
.10
.05
-.10
.11
-.05
.04
.21
.16
.10
-.12
-.07
-.03
.01
-.06
-.05
Factor5
Unfair
 =.75
.14
.14
.16
-.00
-.02
.07
-.01
.05
-.00
Factor 6
Misled
 =.87
.20
.08
.01
.15
.24
-.18
.14
.02
-.13
Factor 7
Reward
 =.68
Factor 3 Factor 4
Favorites Credit
 =.81
 = .87
6. I was envious because I did a better job than
the other person, yet she/he reaped the rewards.
-.11
.78
Factor 1
Factor 2
Inadequate Deserved
 =.89
 =.88
18. The person I was envious of did not deserve
what he/she received. I deserved what he/she
received.
-.05
Questionnaire Items *
25. I was envious because I deserved it more
than the person who received it.
* Item number next to questionnaire item is original item number in survey
Malone & Daly 231
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Table 1 Continued
20. The person I was envious of received praise for my ideas.
32. The person I was envious of took credit for my work.
21. The person I was envious of was granted special
privileges.
5. I was envious because the other person was favored.
17. I was envious because the boss played favorites.
29. I was envious of his/her socializing with the boss.
12. I envied his/her close relationship with the boss.
33. I was envious because the other person did not distinguish
themselves from the rest of us, yet they were chosen.
27. I was envious because I worked harder than the other
person, yet he/she received what I wanted.
.06
.12
.02
.01
.04
-.07
.18
.22
-.15
-.06
.23
.19
.16
.22
.09
.28
.10
.03
.06
.56
.76
.20
.09
.09
.01
.56
.66
.70
.81
.82
.28
.08
Favorites
.05
.83
.86
.87
.29
-.02
.10
.06
-.02
.02
.20
Credit
.76
.08
.08
.04
.32
.16
.32
.03
-.01
.18
.22
Unfair
.22
.10
.08
.02
-.07
.11
.21
.04
.01
.14
.05
Misled
-.01
.09
.01
.01
.18
.04
-.02
.02
.05
.16
.17
Reward
Inadequate Deserved
16. The person I was envious of received recognition for my
work.
-.16
Questionnaire Items
28. I was envious because I was not treated fairly.
Iowa Journal of Communication
232 Malone & Daly
Table 1 Continued
10. I was envious because what I wanted and was
promised was given to someone else.
3. I was envious because management promised me
something and gave it to someone else.
24. The person I was envious of had an unfair advantage.
14. I was envious because the situation was unfair.
30. I was envious because of unjust treatment by the
company.
.04
.06
.04
.13
-.23
-.10
.29
.20
.23
.23
.16
.33
.13
.11
.06
.13
.10
.20
.08
.12
Favorites
-.01
.14
.10
.09
.07
-.03
.07
Credit
-.01
.22
.18
.17
.54
.69
.73
Unfair
.25
-.08
.84
.86
-.12
.09
.33
Misled
.74
.77
.09
.09
.22
-.04
.13
Reward
Inadequate Deserved
13. The person I was envious of got a pay raise and I
didn’t.
.13
Questionnaire Items
1. The person I was envious of received a promotion that
I wanted.
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 233
person I was envious of took credit for my work” and "The person I
was envious of received recognition for my work.” The fifth factor
(e) was labeled Unfair. Four items loaded on this factor, including
such statements as “I was envious because I was not treated fairly”
and “I was envious because the situation was unfair.” The sixth factor
(f) was labeled Misled. Two items loaded on this factor, including “I
was envious because management promised me something and gave
it to someone else” and “I was envious because what I wanted and
was promised was given to someone else.” The seventh factor (g)
was labeled Reward. Two items loaded on this factor, including “The
person I was envious of received a pay raise and I didn’t” and “The
person I was envious of received a promotion that I wanted.” (See
Table 1).
To better understand the relative role of each of the factors for
causes of malicious envy we computed means for each dimension.
The factor with the highest composite mean was Unfair (M = 4.46,
SD = 1.60), followed by Deserved (M = 4.17, SD = 1.82), Favorites
(M = 3.95, SD = 1.60), Reward (M = 3.58, SD = 2.04), Misled (M =
2.76, SD = 1.92), Credit (M = 2.58, SD = 1.75), and Inadequate (M =
2.27, SD = 1.40). All composite scales were highly reliable.
In addition, we computed Pearson correlations between each
factor and the respondents’ self-reported Degree of Malicious Envy.
All factors were positively and significantly correlated with
malicious envy except Inadequate. Malicious envy was associated
with: Unfair (r = .51, p< .01), Deserved (r = .48, p< .01), Favorites (r
= .36, p< .01), Reward (r = .35, p< .01), Misled (r = .33, p< .01) and
Credit (r = .12, p< .05).
The 48-item Responses to Malicious Envy measure was also
factor analyzed via principal components analysis with a varimax
rotation. Results were assessed using a minimum eigen-value of one
and scree plots. An item was considered to load meaningfully on a
factor when it loaded at least .60 on that factor with no loading on
any other factor being greater than .40. Again, the decision was to
use exploratory factor analysis because we began the project without
hypotheses. Nine of the original items were dropped due to low
factor loadings. A nine-factor solution accounting for 68.5% of the
variance emerged in the analysis (Table 2).
The first factor (a) was labeled Negative Other. Ten items
loaded on this factor, including statements such as “I could not stand
to be in the same room with the person I envied” and “I cut her/him
down to others.” The second factor (b) was labeled Talk to Boss.
Four items loaded on this factor, including statements such as, “I had
a discussion with my manager about what happened” and “I let my
manager know I was not pleased.” The third factor (c) was labeled
Commiserate. Five items loaded on this factor, including items, “I
commiserated with sympathetic coworkers about the situation” and “I
Iowa Journal of Communication
234 Malone & Daly
Table 2
Stage Two: Results of Principal Component Factor
Analysis for Responses to Malicious Envy
26. I could not stand to
be in the same room with
the person I envied.
6. I avoided the person I
envied.
31. I disliked the person
I envied.
47. I was less friendly to
the person I envied
following the incident.
43. I minimized contact
with the person I was
envious of.
.75
.78
.79
.80
.84
.85
.15
.06
.04
.06
.02
.03
.02
.05
.20
.13
.08
.23
.15
.09
.07
.26
.13
.05
.12
.06
.10
.21
-.01
.13
.10
.10
.09
.10
.06
.04
.12
-.00
.05
.06
.02
-.05
.04
-.11
.06
-.06
-.00
-.03
.08
.19
.11
-.02
.15
.07
-.01
.15
-.12
-.04
.19
-.06
-.03
.04
Questionnaire Items *
29. I felt hostile toward
the envied person.
.74
Factor 1 Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4 Factor5 Factor 6 Factor 7 Factor 8
Factor 9
Negother Talkboss Commiserate Negemot Angjob Noticeme Ignored Harassed Reassurance
=.94
=.94
=.88
=.84
=.76
=.71
=.62
=.77
=.32
15. I did not help the
envied person following
the incident.
* Item number next to questionnaire item is original item number in survey
Malone & Daly 235
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Table 2 Continued
13. I resented the person I
was envious of.
32. I decided not to teach
or help train the envied
person following the
incident.
.63
.69
.71
.88
.11
.14
.15
.17
.35
.12
.07
.09
.11
.06
.35
.17
.09
.10
.10
-.09
.16
.09
.12
-.01
.05
-.19
-.11
-.16
.01
.05
.03
.04
.01
.35
.10
.06
.14
.07
-.08
-.06
Reassurance
11. I cut her/him down to
others.
.08
.86
.17
Questionnaire Items
41. I discussed with my
manager what happened.
.06
.83
.15
28. I asked my manager
why the situation
occurred.
.14
Negother Talkbos Commiserat Negemot Angjob Noticeme Ignored Harassed
s
e
.11
.07
.01
.22
.13
-.07
.10
25. I let my manager
know I was not pleased.
Iowa Journal of Communication
236 Malone & Daly
Table 2 Continued
30. I discussed the
situation with others who
understood.
12. I complained to my
manager or a superior
about the situation.
.24
.18
.09
.21
.16
.11
.69
.71
.80
.82
.29
.29
.06
.12
.18
-.01
.14
.14
.16
.04
.09
.06
.05
.01
.06
-.09
-.11
-.04
-.07
-.04
-.08
-.00
.11
.08
-.05
.52
.04
.00
.01
.21
Reassurance
27. I complained to
others about the situation.
.25
.25
.58
Questionnaire Items
16. I commiserated with
sympathetic coworkers
about the situation.
.27
.08
.06
38. I told others how
unhappy I was with the
situation.
.11
Negother Talkbos Commiserat Negemot Angjob Noticeme Ignored Harassed
s
e
.82
.18
.13
.13
.13
-.18
.10
5. I discussed it with
supportive friends.
Malone & Daly 237
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Table 2 Continued
9. I was angry following
the incident.
17. I was frustrated after
the incident.
36. I felt resentful about
the situation.
14. I experienced a lot of
frustration due to this
incident.
2. I cried after the
incident.
7. I felt sad after this
incident.
Questionnaire Items
.17
.34
.22
.38
.30
-.01
.16
Negother
.23
.12
.31
.25
.29
.24
-.06
.01
.11
.14
.27
.34
.16
.32
.04
.08
.18
.11
.54
.58
.59
.61
.69
.75
.75
.76
.20
.13
.15
.13
.14
.05
.01
-.10
-.10
-.01
-.01
.03
.12
.09
-.05
-.02
.06
.21
.12
.06
-.17
.02
-.00
.18
-.10
-.17
.02
-.07
.17
.07
Harassed
.06
.02
-.11
-.16
-.02
-.12
.16
.20
Reassurance
Negemot Angjob Noticeme Ignored
18. I quit my job after
this incident.
.25
Talkboss Commiserate
10. I started looking
for a new job after this
event.
Iowa Journal of Communication
238 Malone & Daly
Table 2 Continued
35. I tried to get
management to notice
me after the incident.
46. I tried to gain
management’s
approval after the
incident.
19. I disliked my
supervisor after this
incident.
-.03
.23
.12
.32
-.14
.05
.15
.23
.14
.07
-.06
-.05
.11
.10
.19
.11
.04
.06
.05
.07
.23
-.10
.00
-.24
.15
.03
.61
.10
.16
.64
.78
.84
.08
.64
.73
.12
.06
.03
.01
.03
.01
.06
.08
.06
.01
-.16
.09
.24
-.04
-.05
-.08
Reassurance
23. I worked harder
following the
incident.
-.01
-.03
Negother Talkboss Commiserate Negemot Angjob Noticeme Ignored Harassed
34. I pretended the
situation did not
bother me at all.
.06
Questionnaire Items
45. I suppressed my
feelings about the
situation.
Malone & Daly 239
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Table 2 Continued
22. I tried to provoke the
person I envied.
20. I harassed the person
I envied.
1. I ignored the situation.
21. I did nothing in
response to the envious
situation.
.06
.28
.28
-.17
-.05
Negother
.07
.22
.02
.09
-.34
-.20
Talkboss
.33
.08
.02
.02
-.10
-.19
Commiserate
.45
-.03
-.00
.06
-.17
-.02
.05
-.01
.08
.08
.07
-.00
.14
.02
.14
.05
.02
-.12
-.15
.26
.07
.02
.56
.59
Ignored
-.09
.02
.81
.82
.02
.03
Harassed
.58
.61
-.01
-.02
.06
.19
Reassurance
Negemot Angjob Noticeme
37. I reassured myself
the situation was no
reflection on me.
.09
Questionnaire Items
3. I got support from
family & friends outside
of work.
240 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
complained to others about the situation.” The fourth factor (d) was
labeled Negative Emotion. Six items loaded on this factor, including
statements such as, “I felt sad after this incident” and “I was angry
following the incident.” The fifth factor (e) was labeled Anger at Job.
Three items loaded on this factor, including “I quit my job after this
incident” and “I disliked my supervisor after this incident.” The sixth
factor (f) was labeled Notice Me. Three items loaded on this factor,
including “I tried to gain management’s approval after the incident”
and “I tried to get management to notice me after the incident.” The
seventh factor (g) was labeled Ignored. Three items loaded on this
factor, including “I suppressed my feelings about the situation” and
“I ignored the situation.” The eighth factor (h) was labeled Harassed.
Two items loaded on this factor, including “I harassed the person I
envied” and “I tried to provoke the person I envied.” The ninth factor
(i) was labeled Reassurance. Two items loaded on this factor: “I
reassured myself the situation was no reflection on me” and “I got
support from friends and family outside of work.”
To better understand the relative role of each of the factors for
Responses to Malicious Envy we computed means for each
dimension. With the exception of the last factor, all composite scales
derived from the factor analysis were highly reliable (See Table 2).
The factor with the highest mean was Reassurance (M = 4.41, SD =
1.58), followed by Negative Emotion (M = 4.02, SD = 1.53),
Commiserate (M = 4.01, SD = 1.74), Ignored (M = 3.76, SD = 1.37),
Notice Me (M = 3.33, SD = 1.64), Talk to Boss (M = 3.19, SD =
2.17), Anger at Job (M = 2.96, SD = 1.84), Negative Other (M =
2.76, SD = 1.65), and Harassed (M = 1.59, SD = 1.16).
In addition, we computed Pearson correlations between each
factor and the respondents’ self-reported Degree of Malicious Envy.
All factors were positively and significantly correlated with
Malicious Envy except Harassed. Malicious Envy was associated
with Negative Emotion (r = .55, p< .01), Talk to Boss (r = .39, p<
.01), Commiserate (r = .38, p< .01), Anger at Job (r = .37, p< .01),
Negative Other (r = .37, p< .01), Reassurance (r = .22, p< .01), and
Notice Me (r = .15, p< .01). There was also a negative and significant
correlation between Malicious Envy and Ignored (r = -.11, p< .05).
Pearson correlations were also run between factors developed
for the Causes of Malicious Envy and factors developed for
Responses to Malicious Envy. Several causes were significantly and
positively correlated with several response factors. The highest
correlations were between the cause factor of Unfair and the response
factors of Talk to Boss (r = .45, p< .01), Negative Emotion (r = .43,
p< .01), Commiserate (r = .42, p< .01), and Anger at Job (r = .41, p<
.01).
To better understand the relationship between causes of
Malicious Envy and responses to the emotion a serious of multiple
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 241
regression analyses were completed. In a series of nine analyses, each
individual response factor to Malicious Envy was regressed on the
seven causes for the envy. All of the models were significant except
for the regression on Ignored [F (7, 377) = 1.64, ns, R² = .03]. None
of the cause factors predicted Ignored as a communicative response.
The significant models included: Negative Other[F (7, 371) = 19.65,
p< .001, R² = .27]; Talk to Boss[F (7, 377) = 20.58, p< .001, R² =
.28]; Commiserate[F (7, 377) = 14.29, p< .001, R² = .21]; Negative
Emotion[F (7, 377) = 20.14, p< .001, R² = .27]; Anger at Job [F (7,
377) = 18.72, p< .001, R² = .26]; Notice Me [F (7, 377) = .14, p<
.001, R² = .16]; Harassed [F (7, 377) = 6.37, p< .001, R² = .11]; and
Reassurance[F (7, 377) = .10, p< .001, R² = .12](see Table 3).
Tolerances were less than .20 and variance inflations were greater
than four suggesting that none of the analyses were meaningfully
affected by multicollinearity. The specific predictors for each model
are displayed in Table 3.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine causes of and responses to
situational malicious envy in the workplace from a communication
perspective. Drawing conceptually from Affective Events Theory
(Glomb et al., 2002) we assessed what people believed caused them
to feel malicious envy in the workplace and when they did
experience the emotion, how they responded. AET appears to offer
an appropriate framework for studying causes and responses to
malicious envy. We initially asked a number of people with work
experience to recall a time when they felt envious. We left the sort of
envy—benign or malicious—up to them. Not surprisingly, more than
two-thirds of respondents recalled an event that sparked malicious
envy. Many of the causes people suggested for their malicious envy
were similar to what prior research suggests—there were cases of
inequity and feelings of inferiority. But, data also revealed other
causes such as peers being perceived to have stronger personal
relationships with supervisors or peers taking and receiving credit for
work the respondent had done. The causes for envy found in this
study are far more diverse than indicated in previous research,
suggesting within the framework, that many more types of workrelated events can lead to the effect of malicious envy than
previously thought.
In the second phase of the project we created a number of items
tapping into the various causes people suggested in the first phase. A
large sample of working adults completed the items, which were then
factor analyzed. We discovered seven factors for causes of malicious
envy. The factors most likely to elicit malicious envy were a sense of
242 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
Table 3
Simultaneous Multiple Regression Analysis Summary
for Responses to Malicious Envy Factors on Causes of
Malicious Envy Factors
Dependent
Variables
Negative Other
Predictor
Variables
Inadequate
Deserved
Favorites
Credit
B
.21
.17
.21
.13
β
.17
.19
.21
.14
t______
3.50***
3.09**
3.92***
2.74**
Talk to Boss
Favorites
Credit
Unfair
Misled
-.14
.15
.46
.22
-.10
.12
.34
.19
-1.99*
2.48**
5.90***
3.70***
Commiserate
Inadequate
Deserved
Unfair
.13
.15
.37
.10
.15
.34
1.97*
2.41*
5.57***
Negative Emotion
Inadequate
Unfair
.26
.37
.24
.38
4.79***
6.62***
Anger at Job
Favorites
Credit
Unfair
Misled
Reward
.13
.14
.25
.18
.12
.11
.14
.22
.18
.13
2.10*
2.76**
3.80***
3.53***
2.52**
Notice Me
Inadequate
Favorites
Reward
.23
.16
.09
.19
.15
.11
3.67***
2.76**
2.07*
Harassed
Inadequate
Deserved
.17
.11
.21
.18
3.77***
2.60**
Reassurance
Unfair
.23
.23
3.63***
*** p< .001, ** p< .01, * p< .05
being treated unfairly, a belief that the person deserved something
someone else received, and a feeling that supervisors played
favorites. Six of the seven eliciting factors were significantly and
positively correlated with malicious envy. Following the AET model,
specific trigger events in the workplace were strongly connected to
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 243
the subsequent effect of malicious envy. Feelings of malicious envy
were uncorrelated with people’s sense of being inadequate in the
situation they recalled. This is interesting since many scholars have
suggested that one’s sense of insecurity or poor esteem (Parrott &
Smith, 1993) should be correlated with envy. Yet we failed to find
that with our sample. A likely reason is that participants were asked
to focus on a specific event whereas prior research (e.g., Smith et al.,
1999) focused on dispositional esteem and dispositional envy. A
general sense of envy may well be associated with lower general selfesteem while the degree of malicious envy someone feels in a
particular situation may not be related to esteem. Previous research
suggests that general envy contains an element of feeling inferior,
which is associated with depression and sadness (Parrott, 1991;
Parrott & Smith, 1993, Smith et al., 1999) while malicious envy is
associated with hostility (Bedeian, 1995; Parrott & Smith, 1993;
Salovey & Rodin, 1986; Smith, 1991; Smith et al., 1999). So, while
people who experience malicious envy in a specific situation may
have negative feelings about the situation and others involved in that
setting, they don’t necessarily have negative feelings about
themselves in that setting.
Unfairness was the most frequent cause of malicious envy in the
rank order of factors for causes of malicious envy, which is
consistent with previous research. Indeed Smith et al. (1999) contend
that a sense of injustice along with associated feelings of hostility is
the element that creates malicious envy, which would remain benign
without the sense of injustice and associated feelings of hostility.
Considering AET, the triggering event was viewed as unfair, which
led to the effect of malicious envy.
In addition to looking for the connection between the trigger
event (cause) and subsequent affect (malicious envy), as described in
the AET model, we were also looking for the connection between the
affect and the subsequent behavior (communicative response) in the
workplace. In the first stage of this project we also asked people to
respond to an open-ended question about how they responded when
they felt malicious envy. In the second stage we used those responses
to construct scales to tap into those responses. After factor analyzing
these responses we identified nine factors. Some of the factors
represented what prior research suggests, such as negative reactions
toward the envied person (e.g., cut the envied person down to others)
and angry reactions directed toward the job (e.g., quit job). We also
identified some factors that previous work on malicious envy has not
found. One surprising result different from previous research is
responses that caused harm to the envied person or the organization
were not the most likely responses to malicious envy. The most
common ways people responded when they felt malicious envy were
to seek reassurance, feel negative emotions such as sadness and
244 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
anger, and commiserate with people. Previous research indicates that
responses to envious feelings in the workplace are most often
negative or harmful (Cohen-Charash, 2000; Duffy & Shaw, 2000;
Miner, 1990; Vecchio, 2000) while results in this study found a
mixture of responses that could be considered harmful to the envied
person or organization and responses that would not be considered
harmful (e.g., discussed the situation with the manager).
Only the factor of Ignored (e.g. pretending the event didn’t
bother the person, suppressing feelings) was inversely related to
malicious envy. The more malicious envy people felt, the less likely
they were to ignore the behavior. The degree to which respondents
harassed the source of envy (e.g., tried to provoke the envied other)
was unrelated to the amount of malicious envy they felt. Future
research will need to examine why there appears to be no meaningful
relationship between envy and harassment.
We calculated a series of multiple regressions looking at the
interrelationship of sources of envy and people’s responses to the
emotion. Different causes were associated with different responses.
The most common causes were feelings of inadequacy, a sense of
unfairness, and a belief that favoritism was present in the recalled
event. Prior research has clearly highlighted issues of inadequacy and
unfairness. On the other hand, no research on envy has directly
considered the role of favoritism although some studies have
suggested favoritism can have negative consequences in the
workplace (Robinson & Bennett, 1995). Favoritism in this study was
reliably related to people feeling negative about the envied other,
talking to the boss about the event, being angry in the job, and
engaging in behaviors that get respondents more attention.
It is important to note that eight of the nine responses to
malicious envy are clearly communicative in nature. All of these
responses either consist of direct interactive face-to-face
communication or hold communication value. When people felt
malicious envy they interacted negatively with the envied person
(e.g., less friendly to the person), they complained to their boss about
the event, they commiserated with others, they were angry at their
job (e.g., quit my job), they tried to get the attention of management,
they ignored or stopped talking to the person who provoked their
envy, they harassed the person who caused them to feel envy, and
they sought out reassurance from peers. In alignment with AET,
these factors include a wide variety of communicative responses in
the workplace that followed the effect of malicious envy. Negative
emotion could be considered non-communicative since it primarily
included emotions such as “felt sad,” “felt resentful,” and “felt
angry” which are all internal emotional states. However, if the
emotions were expressed to others, such as yelling at the envied
person, that would be considered an interactive communicative
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 245
response. AET provides a useful framework to help us understand the
connections between the event, the affect, and the response.
This study made the following contributions to the literature on
envy in the workplace: (a) focused on causes of situational malicious
envy and (b) responses to situational malicious envy (c) focused on
malicious envy as distinct from general envy and (d) situational envy
instead of dispositional envy, (e) examined envious peoples’
perceptions as to what caused their feelings of malicious envy, (f)
explored communicative responses to feelings of malicious envy
rather than coping strategies, and (e) considered factors that affect
choices of communicative responses to malicious envy.
Limitations and Future Directions
We depended upon people’s reports of what they felt. Relying
on participants’ memories instead of actual observed behaviors could
be considered a limitation, however, in work on emotion this is
probably the optimal way of tapping their feelings. It would be very
useful for future work to examine actual behavioral reactions to envy.
Do people talk differently to people they feel envious about? How do
people go about getting the attention of their managers when they
feel envious? One limitation when asking participants about negative
emotions like malicious envy could be social desirability. While
people responded to the survey anonymously it still may have been
difficult for some to report highly negative behaviors.
This study adds to the literature on envy by developing a useful
framework of causes and responses to malicious envy and provides a
starting point for further empirical studies based on the typology laid
out in the factor analyses. The results here provide information
beneficial for practitioners to make them aware of some of the factors
and conditions that lead to envy in the workplace and enable them to
take a more proactive role in preventing the triggering events.
Practitioners may also be able to more readily recognize the
responses and perhaps more effectively address employees’ reactions
to envy. In the future it would be interesting to study which responses
produced the most positive outcomes and if certain causes lead to
specific responses. Further studies into malicious envy in the
workplace must continue to reveal significant information that affects
employees and ultimately their organizations. Hopefully this study
points to a new fruitful direction to study malicious envy, its
workplace consequences, and potentially better ways to address it.
References
Atkinson, R. & Flint, J. (2001).Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach
populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research
Update, 33, 1-4.
246 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
Basch, J., & Fisher, C.D. (2000). Affective events-emotions matrix:
A classification of work events and associated emotions. In
N.M. Ashkanasy, C.E. Hartel, & W.J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in
the workplace research, theory, and practice (pp.36-48).
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bedeian, A.G. (1995).Workplace envy. Organizational Dynamics,
23, 49-56.
Bulmer, M. (1979).Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data.
Sociological Review, 27, 651-677.
Buunk, B. (1982). Anticipated sexual jealousy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 310-316.
Cohen-Charash, Y. (2000). Envy at work: An exploratory
examination of antecedents and outcomes. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 62 (01), 584. (UNI No. 3001975)
Cohen-Charash, Y. & Mueller, J.S. (2007). Does perceived
unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal
counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 666-680.
Duffy, M.K., & Shaw, J.D. (2000).The Salieri syndrome
consequences of envy in groups. Small Group Research, 3, 323.
Duffy, M.K., Shaw, J.D., & Schaubroeck, J.M. (2008). Envy in
organizational life. In R.H. Smith (Ed.), Envy (pp. 167-189).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glomb, T.M., Steel, P.D., & Arvey, R.D. (2002). Office sneers,
snipes, and stab wounds: Antecedents, consequences, and
implications of workplace violence and aggression. In R.G.
Lord, R.J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the
workplace (pp.227-259). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., Jorgensen, P.F., Spitzberg, B.H., &
Eloy, S.V. (1995).Coping with the green-eyed monster:
Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to
romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270304.
Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. L., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005).Emotion
and communication in the context of romantic jealousy.
Personal Relationships, 12, 233-252.
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Huseman, R.C., Hatfield, J.D., & Miles, E.W. (1987). A new
perspective on equity theory: The equity sensitivity construct.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 222-234.
Lazarus, R.S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lord, R.G. & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational
behavior. In R.G. Lord, R.J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.),
Volume 44, Number 2, Spring 2012, pp. 220-248
Malone & Daly 247
Emotions in the workplace (pp. 5-19). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Miner, F.C., Jr. (1990).Jealousy on the job. Personnel Journal, 69,
89-95.
Parrott, W.G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and
jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and
envy (pp.3-30). New York: The Guilford Press.
Parrott, W.G., & Smith, R.H. (1993).Distinguishing the experiences
of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 906-920.
Pines, A.M., & Friedman, A. (1998).Gender differences in romantic
jealousy. Journal of Social Psychology,138, 54-71.
Robinson, S.L., & Bennett, R.J. (1995). A typology of deviant
workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. The
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555-572.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984).Some antecedents and consequences
of social-comparison jealousy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47, 780-792.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1986).The differentiation of socialcomparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1100-1112.
Schaubroeck, J., & Lam, S.S.K. (2004).Comparing lots before and
after: Promotion rejectees’ invidious reactions to promotees.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94,
33-47.
Silver, M., & Sabini, J. (1978). The perception of envy. Social
Psychology, 41, 105-117.
Smith, R.H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. In P. Salovey
(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.79-97). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Smith, R.H., Combs, D.J.Y., &Thielke, S.M. (2008).Envy and the
challenges to good health.In R.H. Smith (Ed.), Envy (pp. 290314). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, R.H., & Kim, S.H. (2007).Comprehending envy.
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46-64.
Smith, R.H., Kim, S.H., & Parrott, W.G. (1988). Envy and jealousy:
Semantic problems and experiential distinctions. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 401-409.
Smith, R.H., Parrott, W.G, Diener, E.F., Hoyle, R.H., & Kim, S.H.
(1999).Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 1007-1020.
Smith, R.H., Parrott, W.G, Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994).Subjective
justice and inferiority as predictors of hostile and depressive
feelings in envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
20, 705-711.
248 Malone & Daly
Iowa Journal of Communication
Vangelisti, A.L., Daly, J.A., & Rudnick, J.R. (1991). Making people
feel guilty in conversations: Techniques and correlates. Human
Communication Research, 18, 3-39.
Vecchio, R.P. (1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in
the workplace. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 13, 201-244.
Vecchio, R.P. (2000). Negative emotion in the workplace: Employee
jealousy and envy. International Journal of Stress
Management, 7, 161-179.
Weiss, H.M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences
of affective experiences at work. In B.M. Staw & L.L.
Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol.
19, pp. 1-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
White, G.L., & Mullen, P.E. (1989).Jealousy: Theory, research, and
clinical practice. Journal of Personality, 69, 955-978.