Salt in the Wound: A Social Comparison Perspective on Witnessing Coworkers’ Gratitude Expression Toward Supervisors

Abstract

When employees express gratitude to their supervisors, it may convey important social information to coworkers who witness the expression, shaping their reactions toward the gratitude expresser. Yet, third-party reactions to employees’ gratitude expressions remain undertheorized, despite organizations’ heightened focus on promoting such expressions through various organizational programs and initiatives (e.g., appreciation programs). Drawing on social comparison theory and social functional accounts of emotions, we argue that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression toward a mutual supervisor reflects a source of upward social comparison information for employees who perceive a lower quality relationship with the supervisor (i.e., those with lower levels of leader-member-exchange social comparison, or LMXSC). We propose that lower LMXSC employees are likely to experience greater feelings of envy toward the gratitude expresser and, in turn, undermine them at work. The results of an experiment and a critical incident study support these predictions. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our investigation, as well as avenues for future research on workplace gratitude.

Keywords

gratitude expression LMXSC envy social comparison social undermining

Gratitude expressions are pervasive in organizational life. Whereas gratitude is “a feeling of appreciation in response to an experience that is beneficial to, but not attributable to, the self” (Fehr et al., p. 363), gratitude expression involves outwardly showing one’s thankfulness or appreciation toward a benefactor through verbal or nonverbal behavior (Algoe et al., 2013; Grant & Gino, 2010; Watkins, 2013).¹ Gratitude expressions reflect a powerful interpersonal force driving prosocial behavior between expressers and recipients (Algoe et al., 2016). As organizations adopt greater team-based structures, leaders are increasingly striving to cultivate gratitude expression as a way to enhance cooperation among team members (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Locklear et al., 2021). Indeed, many organizations have implemented employee appreciation programs, which reflect a fast, inexpensive way to promote collaboration (Gostick & Elton, 2020). Interest in gratitude expression has recently increased in the management field, and scholars have accumulated evidence that it, among other things, enables employees to find meaning in their work (Lee et al., 2019), reduces interpersonal mistreatment (Locklear et al., 2021), strengthens interpersonal relationships (Algoe et al., 2013), and motivates recipients to engage in prosocial behavior (Grant & Gino, 2010).

While this focus on gratitude expressers and recipients is valuable to our understanding of the positive consequences of gratitude expression at work, it is nonetheless incomplete. Some scholars have hinted that gratitude expression may have a potential “darker” side and that cultivating such knowledge is important to promoting a more balanced, practical understanding of the benefits and potential costs of gratitude expression in organizations (e.g., Carr, 2016; Fehr et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2016). We argue that by adopting a third-party (i.e., observer) perspective on gratitude expression, the “darker” side of such behavior can be observed. Gratitude scholars have stressed the importance of third-parties in considering the broader social consequences of gratitude expression (Algoe et al., 2020). Gratitude expression does not occur in a vacuum; rather, individuals often publicly express gratitude to their supervisors for benefits they receive (e.g., desirable job assignments, training opportunities, career coaching, social support). Accordingly, we propose that observing employees may, in turn, compare the relative benefits they enjoy to those of the gratitude expresser (Duffy et al., 2012). Indeed, social comparison with coworkers is often automatic, and unfavorable comparison information may engender negative responses by focusing employees’ attention on what they lack relative to their coworkers (Ganegoda & Bordia, 2019; Lee & Duffy, 2019).

We integrate social comparison theory (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954) with social functional accounts of emotions (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009) to develop a theoretical model that explains when and why witnessing a coworker’s expression of gratitude toward a mutual supervisor is associated with negative emotional and behavioral responses from observing employees. Central to our theory, we propose that coworkers’ expressions of gratitude toward supervisors can serve as a salient source of upward social comparison information for third-party observers, which may pose a self-relevant threat. When a coworker expresses gratitude, it communicates to observers that the coworker has received desirable benefits from their mutual supervisor. For example, employees may express gratitude toward their supervisor for receiving certain task-related or relational resources, which facilitate their job performance. From this perspective, we argue that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression may elicit envy in observers–an unpleasant emotion marked by feelings of resentment, hostility, and inferiority (Smith, 2000; Smith & Kim, 2007).

Integrating theory on contingencies of people’s interpretations and reactions to upward social comparisons (Major et al., 1991; Smith, 2000), we further propose that leader–member exchange social comparison (LMXSC)–one’s subjective comparison of the quality of their relationship with a supervisor compared to a focal coworker (Vidyarthi et al., 2010)–acts as a critical contingency on this effect. That is, it serves as a perceptual filter through which observers perceive their capability to obtain similar benefits from a mutual supervisor. Observers with lower (vs. higher) LMXSC (i.e., those who perceive the quality of their relationship with the supervisor as inferior relative to the target coworker) are more likely to engage in an upward contrastive comparison with their coworker (i.e., believe that the benefits received by a coworker are unattainable to them), as evidenced by their heightened feelings of envy. Under such conditions, we further propose that observers are, in turn, likely to engage in social undermining of the gratitude expresser (i.e., behavior intended to hinder, over time, the target’s ability to establish and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success, and favorable reputation; Duffy et al., 2002).

The current research makes several important contributions to the literature. First, we shift the theoretical lens on workplace gratitude by adopting an observer-centered perspective that reveals its potential negative consequences. While prior research has predominantly focused on the positive consequences of gratitude expression for expressers and recipients (e.g., Lambert et al., 2012; Sheridan & Ambrose, 2022), our theoretical model explains when and why witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression toward a mutual supervisor may elicit negative emotional and behavioral responses from observers. Second, we extend the emotional expression literature by theorizing social comparison as a central interpersonal process through which expressed emotions shape observers’ responses in the workplace. In doing so, we address recent calls to unpack the underlying social mechanisms that explain how emotional expressions, particularly less-studied emotions such as gratitude, impact others at work (Van Kleef & Côté, 2022). Third, we theorize LMXSC as a critical relational boundary condition that moderates how observers interpret and respond to coworkers’ expressions of gratitude. This nuanced perspective highlights that observers’ reactions to emotional expressions are socially situated—shaped not only by what is expressed, but also by their perceived relative standing with a mutual supervisor.

Theoretical Background and Hypotheses Development

Gratitude Expression and Its Potential Dark Side for Third Parties

When employees express gratitude, they outwardly manifest their internal state of thankfulness for benefits received from a benefactor (i.e., the gratitude recipient). At work, gratitude expressions can take the form of verbal behavior (e.g., saying thank you), facial expressions (e.g., smiling), letters of appreciation, and tokens of thankfulness (i.e., gifts), which acknowledge the value one places on the benefit received and the benefactor’s positive intentions toward the beneficiary (Locklear et al., 2023). Accordingly, it is perhaps not surprising that the existing literature on gratitude expression is marked by two prominent themes.

First, research mainly suggests that gratitude expression has positive consequences for gratitude expressers and recipients. For example, research suggests that when supervisors receive expressions of appreciation from their subordinates, they report increased energy levels, along with greater job and life satisfaction (Sheridan & Ambrose, 2022). Other research shows that when employees are targets of others’ gratitude expressions, the energy they derive from such experiences spills over into their personal lives by promoting their spouses’ family satisfaction (Tang et al., 2022). Furthermore, prior studies indicate that, compared to other positive emotional expressions (e.g., pride), gratitude expressions reflect a more powerful driver of recipients’ helping behaviors and serve to cultivate trusting relationships between expressers and receivers (Ritzenhöfer et al., 2017, 2019). However, despite its valuable contributions, this body of work has largely overlooked the potential negative side of gratitude expressions.

Second, these studies predominantly adopt the perspective of gratitude expressers or recipients, thereby overlooking the perspective of third-party observers and how these individuals may uniquely interpret and react to others’ expressions of gratitude at work. This omission is particularly noteworthy in light of social functional accounts of emotions (e.g., Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009), which posit that emotional expressions have important effects on those who observe them. According to this perspective, emotional expressions carry informational value, such that observers derive relevant information from others’ emotional expressions to make sense of their social environment (Elfenbein, 2007; Hareli & Hess, 2010). Notably, such emotional expressions reveal the expresser’s experiences and social interactions with others (Van Kleef, 2009). For example, gratitude expressions can communicate the value of the benefit received, along with the costs and perceived benevolent intentions of the benefactor. Thus, when observers witness others’ emotional expressions, this may trigger complex emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions because observers appraise such informational cues differently (Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Van Kleef, 2009).

From a third-party perspective, we argue that witnessing a coworker’s expression of gratitude toward a mutual supervisor signals to observers that the expresser has received certain valued benefits from the supervisor and that this signal can have implications for some observers’ feelings of envy and subsequent undermining behavior. In the following sections, we thus propose a model that illuminates a potential “dark” side of gratitude expression. To do so, we draw on the core tenets of the social comparison literature to illustrate the social appraisal process of third-party observers.

Upward Social Comparison

Central to our theorizing, we propose that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression toward a mutual supervisor may pose a self-relevant threat to observers by serving as a salient source of upward social comparison information. Upward social comparison involves comparing oneself with others who are perceived to hold certain advantages or be better off in some way, implying an unfavorable comparison with superior others (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Matta & Van Dyne, 2020). Such comparisons are especially salient in workplaces because the gratitude recipient, a mutual supervisor shared by both the expresser and the observer, holds the authority to allocate limited, valuable resources (e.g., task assistance, mentoring experiences, valued job assignments) to work unit members (Vidyarthi et al., 2010). As such, we maintain that witnessing gratitude can convey social information to observing employees, indicating that their coworker has received desirable benefits from their supervisor—a scenario that may shape their emotional and behavioral responses toward their coworker. To explore the nature of this process, we draw on the social comparison literature (cf., Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954), which offers a framework for understanding how witnessing others’ positive emotional expressions—such as gratitude—may trigger unfavorable self-evaluation and negative reactions. According to social comparison theory, human beings have a basic motivation to self-evaluate, which, in the absence of objective data, leads them to compare themselves with similar others to obtain self-relevant information (Festinger, 1954). Within modern workplaces, social comparison is pervasive; this is because the competitive and uncertain nature of organizations often drives employees to focus on and compare the benefits they enjoy relative to their coworkers (Greenberg et al., 2007).

When employees experience unfavorable upward comparisons with a target individual, this can trigger painful emotions, depending on whether the comparison target’s advantage is perceived as attainable or under the comparer’s control (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Major et al., 1991; Mussweiler et al., 2004). When people’s perception of control, or attainability, is low, they tend to believe that the comparison target’s advantage is outside of their reach, such that they are likely to experience an upward contrastive comparison (Mussweiler, 2003; Suls et al., 2002). In essence, low controllability, or attainability, puts into high relief what one lacks relative to the target and highlights one’s inability to alter the situation to reduce this perceived discrepancy. As such, upward contrastive comparisons tend to threaten individuals’ sense of self (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Mussweiler et al., 2004). Specifically, when people view themselves as similar to a comparison target (e.g., a coworker) and focus on benefits the target enjoys—particularly those that feel unattainable yet personally significant—they often experience feelings of resentment, hostility, and inferiority associated with envy (Duffy et al., 2012; Smith, 2000; Smith & Kim, 2007; Tai et al., 2012).

Gratitude Expression as a Source of Upward Social Comparison and the Role of LMXSC

We theorize that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression toward a mutual supervisor can trigger observers’ upward comparison with the target because such expressions typically occur in situations where the gratitude expresser receives desirable benefits or advantages, often at some cost to the supervisor (Emmons & McCullough, 2004). Unlike other emotions, gratitude is a social, other-oriented emotion (Watkins, 2013); prior research shows that because it is often expressed explicitly through words of thanks, employees tend to be keenly aware of their coworkers’ gratitude expressions (Fehr et al., 2017). As such, when observers overhear a coworker expressing gratitude, they gain access to information about certain desired benefits that the target has received from the supervisor (e.g., desirable job assignments, career coaching, task support). Building on the core tenets of the social comparison literature, we suggest that, in these situations, observers may experience feelings of envy depending on how they perceive the quality of their relationship with the supervisor relative to their coworker (i.e., LMXSC). That is, their LMXSC may shape how observers appraise and respond to their upward social comparison with coworkers who express gratitude.

As a construct rooted in social comparison, LMXSC reflects a subjective evaluation of one’s LMX relationship relative to that of a target coworker (Greenberg et al., 2007; Matta & Van Dyne, 2020; Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Individuals with lower LMXSC believe that they have a weaker relationship with their supervisor and receive fewer resources (e.g., task assistance, mentoring experiences, valued job assignments) compared to a given coworker, whereas those with higher LMXSC believe that they have a stronger relationship with their supervisor and receive more resources from the supervisor compared to a specific coworker (Vidyarthi et al., 2010). Essentially, LMXSC provides informational cues to employees about whether they are more “ingroup” versus “outgroup” members relative to a given coworker and, thus, whether they have been and will continue to be treated equally by a mutual supervisor (Henderson et al., 2008; Tse et al., 2018). Consequently, when employees feel lower (vs. higher) LMXSC relative to a target coworker, they often feel greater doubt about their capacity to achieve similar future work outcomes (e.g., pay, promotions, career development) (Hu & Liden, 2013; Vidyarthi et al., 2010).

Building on this idea, we argue that the concept of LMXSC is closely associated with the notion of perceived controllability, or attainability, in social comparison research (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997; Major et al., 1991). Specifically, we maintain that LMXSC functions as an important reference point from which one assesses the “position of the self” in relation to the gratitude expresser (Mussweiler et al., 2004, p. 835), shaping the extent to which observers engage in a contrastive upward comparison with a coworker who expresses gratitude. For employees with lower (vs. higher) LMXSC, witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression may be appraised as threatening because it signals that the target has received some desirable benefit, or set of benefits, from their mutual supervisor and that the chances of one attaining similar advantages are less likely due to their lower quality relationship with the supervisor. Put differently, lower LMXSC employees may perceive their coworker as enjoying benefits that are out of reach, due to an attribution that such benefits are, in large part, a reflection of their coworker’s closer relationship with the supervisor. Consistent with this idea, research suggests that employees with lower LMXSC tend to believe they experience more unfair treatment and are less able to change those situations compared to coworkers with higher LMXSC (Bolino & Turnley, 2009; Zhao et al., 2019). For example, employees tend to attribute the superior work performance (i.e., higher creativity) of coworkers with relatively higher LMX relationships to the unfair advantage of additional support from their mutual supervisor (Breidenthal et al., 2020).

Taken further, because overhearing others’ experiences can lead people to relive their own (Gable et al., 2004), witnessing a coworker’s expression of gratitude may prompt observers to mentally revisit instances in which they themselves did not receive similar benefits from their supervisor. For employees with lower LMXSC, such expressions can sting more, or feel like “salt in the wound,” as they highlight the unattainability of those benefits—benefits they perceive as out of reach due to a relatively weaker relationship with the supervisor. In this way, the gratitude expression functions not merely as social information, but as a potent reminder of what the observer lacks and cannot easily attain. This sharp contrast between their own situations and those of the coworker can make observers’ perceived deficiencies more salient and painful, eliciting feelings of envy. Taken together, we argue that lower LMXSC observers are likely to contrast themselves with the target coworker, as evidenced in their heightened experiences of envy.

In contrast, we argue that employees with higher LMXSC are less likely to experience envy when witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression. Such individuals are more inclined to believe that they can also attain similar benefits as their coworker, given their stronger relationship with a mutual supervisor compared to the target coworker (i.e., the gratitude expresser). In this scenario, observers are therefore less likely to interpret their coworker’s grateful expressions as a signal of threat, such that they are less likely to contrast themselves with their coworker. Consequently, witnessing gratitude expression should be less associated with envy for employees with higher (vs. lower) LMXSC.

In turn, we further propose that when lower LMXSC employees witness a coworker expressing gratitude and feel the painful sting of envy, this experience can motivate them to socially undermine their coworker. Prior research consistently links envy to social undermining (Duffy et al., 2002; Kim & Glomb, 2014; Lee & Duffy, 2019). Undermining reflects a set of covert behaviors (e.g., giving incorrect or misleading information, spreading rumors, and sabotaging one’s efforts) that are often an attractive strategy for coping with envy (Duffy et al., 2002). As an instrumental form of aggressive behavior, undermining can impair the target’s task performance, favorable reputation, and social connections (Duffy et al., 2002, 2006). In doing so, undermining is particularly useful for envious individuals because it enhances themselves at the expense of their envied coworker (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Duffy et al., 2012). As such, it functions as a useful strategy for restoring one’s damaged self-evaluation and alleviating painful feelings of envy stemming from upward comparison with a superior coworker (Kim & Glomb, 2014). Building on these ideas, in our context, lower LMXSC observers who witness a coworker’s gratitude expression and experience envy may turn to social undermining as an effective way of eliminating the source of threat and mitigating their feelings of envy. Based on this reasoning, we hypothesize.

Hypothesis 1

There is an interaction effect between witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression and LMXSC on observers’ feelings of envy, such that the relationship is more strongly positive when LMXSC is lower versus higher.

Hypothesis 2

There is a conditional indirect effect of witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression on social undermining via observers’ feelings of envy. The indirect effect is more strongly positive when LMXSC is lower versus higher.

Overviews of Studies

We conducted a pilot study and two primary studies to examine our hypothesized model. Given the scant body of research on coworkers’ gratitude expressions, we first conducted a pilot study to qualitatively explore what employees express gratitude to supervisors for. In Study 1, we employed a vignette-based experiment to test the causal effects of witnessing gratitude expression on envy, thereby bolstering the internal validity of our model. In Study 2, a preregistered study, we used a critical incident technique to replicate our findings in a naturalistic work setting, thereby strengthening the external validity of our model. Across all studies, we carefully document our sampling procedures, inclusion and exclusion criteria, measures, and manipulations. All study materials, including the data, analysis syntax, and results, along with the measures (Study 1 and 2), vignettes (Study 1), and recall instructions and prompts (Study 2), are available on the OSF website.

Pilot Study

Participants and Procedure

Prior to testing our hypotheses, we conducted a pilot study to gain a better understanding of what coworkers typically express gratitude to mutual supervisors for. This study provided a theoretical foundation for developing the experimental vignette used in Study 1 and the recall prompts used in Study 2. We recruited 68 participants from Prolific Academic and asked them to complete a brief critical incidents survey. Participants needed to be employed, over the age of 18, have a direct supervisor and coworkers, and be located in the United States. Participants were asked to indicate whether they had witnessed a coworker’s gratitude expression toward their mutual supervisor in the past few weeks. 45 (66.18%) participants reported witnessing such expressions and provided descriptions of the events in the survey.

Among the 45 participants, 35.56% were female, 57.78% were male, and 6.67% were nonbinary. The average age was 34.98 (SD = 11.20) years. Participants’ average organizational tenure was 6.02 (SD = 6.91) years. Racial and ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: White or Caucasian (57.78%), Black or African American (13.33%), Asian American (8.89%), Hispanic or Latino American (8.89%), and multiple ethnicities (11.11%).

Findings

We analyzed the 45 descriptions, which revealed four overlapping themes: task-related benefits (n = 17, 37.78%), relational benefits (n = 24, 53.33%), compensation (n = 4, 8.89%), and those classified as “other” (n = 3, 6.67%). In some cases (n = 3, 6.67%), participants reported both task-related and relational themes. We found that the task-related gratitude expressions focused on benefits that helped employees successfully complete work tasks (e.g., securing project resources, providing necessary tools, and offering hands-on support). The relational gratitude expressions centered on consideration behaviors, support for personal problems, and professional development (e.g., flexibility for family emergencies, career guidance, and mentorship). Compensation-related gratitude expressions involved benefits such as promotion opportunities and bonuses. Finally, the “other” category involved expressions that did not specify benefits that elicited gratitude. Table 1 illustrates example quotes.

Table 1.

Example Quotes Regarding Witnessing Gratitude Expression (Pilot Study)

Task-related benefits

• The coworker expressed gratitude to our mutual supervisor by thanking her for providing help [with] her project. She appreciated the effort that was shown by the supervisor to acquire resources for her that would accelerate the completion of her tasks

• [This happened] when our supervisor backed up in a meeting that [my] coworker’s idea is good. He (i.e., coworker) really appreciated that his thoughts and ideas were signified to the vice president

• My coworker expressed gratitude to our mutual supervisor for her exceptional leadership during a challenging project. The supervisor had gone above and beyond to support, providing clear guidance, setting realistic expectations, and always being available to address concerns

Relational benefits

• This person is an engineer, who is younger and less experienced than me, but who also reports to my supervisor. I heard her thanking our mutual supervisor for something he did to help give her direction in her career

• My coworker has been sick a lot lately and has had to miss a lot of work. This [co]worker has been very grateful to our boss verbally about how nice the boss has been in being flexible with the lost work hours. Our boss is compassionate and did anything she could to help this worker out while she was sick

• My coworker said, “I just wanted to express my appreciation for your guidance and support all these years working here. Your mentorship has been incredibly helpful in helping me develop my skills both professionally and personally for future jobs and future references. Thank you for being an incredible mentor.”

Compensation-related benefits

• My coworker expressed gratitude to [our] mutual supervisor when the supervisor expressed that the employee would be recommended for a managerial position in the near future

• One of my coworkers was trying to get a promotion to become one of the sales managers, and our superior gave her a great recommendation to upper management, and she actually just stood up and thanked him

• [My coworkers] were happy about [supervisor] giving a bonus so they said they loved them

These findings indicate that employees often witness coworkers expressing gratitude to supervisors (n = 45, 66.18%), and that these expressions often focus on a range of benefits relevant to their success and wellbeing at work. Our findings are also consistent with the leadership literature, which has long documented leaders’ engagement in task-related (i.e., initiating structure) and relationship-oriented (i.e., individualized consideration) behaviors (Bass, 1990; Judge et al., 2004; Stogdill, 1950).

Study 1: Experimental Design

Sample and Procedure

We conducted a vignette-based experiment using a 3 (gratitude expression: task-related benefits, relational benefits, control condition) × 2 (LMXSC: lower vs. higher) between-subject design. A total of 217 U.S. citizens were recruited from Prolific Academic, an online survey platform that provides high-quality data and broad access to a diverse participant pool (see Palan & Schitter, 2018; Peer et al., 2017). Participants received $0.70 in exchange for their participation. To qualify for the study, participants needed to be employed, at least 18 years of age, work with a direct supervisor and coworkers, and be located in the United States.

After excluding 4 participants who failed an instructed response item, the final sample was 213 participants. The average age was 38.46 (SD = 11.06). 41.71% of the sample identified as female, 56.87% identified as male, and 1.42% identified as non-binary. Participants’ average organizational tenure was 8.00 (SD = 6.95) years. Racial and ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: White or Caucasian (64.79%), Black or African American (11.27%), Asian American (11.74%), Hispanic or Latino American (3.76%), American Indian (1.88%), and multiple ethnicities (6.57%).

After obtaining participants’ consent, we presented them with a written scenario in which they were asked to imagine themselves working within a fictional organization. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions that manipulated the study’s focal constructs. Please see Appendix A for details on procedures, instructions, and manipulations.

LMXSC Manipulation

We adapted the LMXSC manipulation by Tse et al. (2018).

Gratitude Expression Manipulation

Following best practice guidelines for creating greater experimental realism in vignette studies (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014), we constructed two gratitude expression scenarios based on the critical incident descriptions in our pilot study (for a similar approach, see Chen & Treviño, 2022; Thoroughgood et al., 2021; Thoroughgood et al., 2024). We focused on task-related and relational gratitude expressions because they represented approximately 85% of all incidents in our pilot data, making them the most typical forms of gratitude expression at work. While compensation-related expressions were also identified, we did not include them in our experimental scenarios due to their relatively low base rate and atypicality. Participants in the control condition did not view any gratitude expression scenario.

Measures

Participants rated all the items on a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). All the measures are provided in the Appendix A. To assess anticipated envy of the fictitious coworker (“Pat”) depicted in the vignettes (α = .95), we used a four-item scale developed by Schaubroeck and Lam (2004). To assess anticipated social undermining of Pat (α = .95), we utilized an eight-item scale from previous studies (e.g., Duffy et al., 2006; Thoroughgood et al., 2022). For the manipulation check, we adopted the six-item measures developed by Vidyarthi et al. (2010) to assess participants’ evaluation of their LMX compared to the LMX of a specific coworker (i.e., LMXSC; α = .99). Perceptions of gratitude expression (α = .98) were assessed using a three-item scale adapted from Lee et al. (2019). We controlled for participants’ age and gender, as these demographic factors may influence perceptions of social interactions and comparisons, as well as experiences of envy and social undermining (Duffy et al., 2012).

Results

Manipulation Checks

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results showed a significant difference between the gratitude expression conditions on the manipulation check measure, F(2, 210) = 151.47, p < .01, η²_ρ = .59. Post hoc comparisons revealed that both the task-related gratitude expression condition (M = 6.49, SD = 0.92) and the relational gratitude expression condition (M = 6.59, SD = 0.81) yielded significantly higher scores on the gratitude expression manipulation check than the control condition (M = 3.49, SD = 1.69). Additionally, participants in the higher LMXSC condition (M = 6.05, SD = 1.03) reported higher scores on the LMXSC manipulation check measure than those in the lower LMXSC condition (M = 1.99, SD = 1.56, t(211) = 22.49, p < .01). Taken together, these results support the effectiveness of our manipulations.

Hypotheses Testing

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations are provided in Table 2. In line with our theoretical framework and to facilitate hypotheses testing, we collapsed the task-related and relational gratitude expression conditions into a single gratitude expression condition.² Hypothesis 1 predicts that LMXSC moderates the relationship between witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression and envy. As Table 3 shows, the two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect (F(1, 209) = 7.11, p < .01, η²_ρ = .03) between gratitude expression (0 = control condition, 1 = gratitude expression condition) and LMXSC (0 = lower LMXSC condition, 1 = higher LMXSC condition). We probed this interaction using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values and found that, for participants in the higher LMXSC condition (F(1, 209) = 4.14, p < .05, η²_ρ = .02), they reported greater anticipated envy in the gratitude expression condition (M = 2.19, SD = 1.41) than in the control condition (M = 1.59, SD = .72). For those in the lower LMXSC condition (F(1, 209) = 34.15, p < .01, η²_ρ = .13), they reported greater anticipated envy in the gratitude expression condition (M = 3.88, SD = 1.70) than in the control condition (M = 2.17, SD = 1.38). A slope difference test further indicated that the relationship between gratitude expression and anticipated envy was significantly stronger in the lower LMXSC condition than in the higher LMXSC condition (difference = 1.15, 95% CI [.39, 1.89]). The interaction pattern is depicted in Figure 1. As such, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 1)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	38.46	11.06	-
2. Gender	0.57	0.50	.05	-
3. Gratitude expression	0.67	0.47	.07	.15*	-
4. LMXSC	0.51	0.50	.07	−.09	.03	-
5. Anticipated envy	2.64	1.67	−.04	.02	.32**	−.39**	(.95)
6. Anticipated social undermining	1.93	1.27	−.23**	.05	.21**	−.14*	.60**	(.95)

Note. n = 213. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses along the diagonal.

Gender: 0 = nonmale, 1 = male. Gratitude expression: 0 = control, 1 = gratitude expression for task-related or relational benefits. LMXSC: 0 = lower, 1 = higher.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3.

Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Study 1)

Predictors	Anticipated envy
Predictors	F	η²_ρ
Gratitude expression	30.85**	.13
LMXSC	30.02**	.13
Gratitude expression x LMXSC	7.11**	.03

Note. Gratitude expression: control = 0, gratitude expression for task-related or relational benefits = 1. LMXSC: 0 = lower LMXSC, 1 = higher LMXSC.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1.

LMXSC as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Gratitude Expression and Anticipated Envy (Study 1)

Hypothesis 2 predicts that LMXSC moderates the indirect effect of witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression on social undermining via envy. We conducted a path analysis adopting Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) analytic approach in Mplus 8.1 (see also Preacher et al., 2007). To test the conditional indirect effect, we conducted bootstrapping analysis and requested 5,000 bootstrapped samples to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (Sardeshmukh & Vandenberg, 2017). As shown in Table 4, results indicated that the moderated mediation index was significant (b = −.57, SE = .23, 95% CI [-1.07, −.17]), suggesting that the LMXSC condition moderated the indirect effect of the gratitude expression condition on anticipated social undermining via anticipated envy. The indirect effect of the gratitude expression condition on anticipated social undermining via anticipated envy was significant and positive for those in the higher LMXSC condition (b = .33, SE = .13, 95% CI [.11, .61]). However, the indirect effect was more strongly positive for those in the lower LMXSC condition (b = .90, SE = .25, 95% CI [.47, 1.45], difference = .57, 95% CI [.17, 1.06]).³

Discussion

Study 1’s results provide initial support for our prediction that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression serves as a source of upward social comparison information, with the potential to elicit envy in observing employees, particularly those with lower LMXSC. We also found no significant difference between gratitude expressed for task-related versus relational benefits, suggesting that witnessing expressions of gratitude—regardless of their content—can have threatening implications for third-party observers. These findings provide initial causal evidence for our theorized model and support its internal validity. While these results are encouraging, it is important to note that our experimental design relied on hypothetical scenarios rather than real workplace experiences. To address this limitation, we conducted a follow-up study using a critical incident method to examine how employees respond to actual instances of witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression at work.

Study 2: Critical Incident Technique

Sample and Procedure

In Study 2’s critical incident study, participants were instructed to recall an incident in which one of their coworkers expressed gratitude toward their mutual supervisor (for a similar approach, see e.g., Chen & Treviño, 2022; Ganster et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2019). Data were collected from 213 participants via Prolific Academic. Participants received $1.60 for their involvement in the study. Our inclusion criteria were the same as in Study 1. Through a separate pre-screening survey, we recruited individuals who: (a) had a coworker with whom they regularly interacted with and who worked under the same supervisor, and (b) had witnessed their coworker expressing gratitude to that supervisor within the past few weeks. Participants were asked to input their coworker’s initials, nickname, or a code name, which was then used to populate all subsequent survey instructions and items.

Table 4.

Results of Conditional Indirect Effects Analysis (Study 1)

Path	Estimate	SE	95% CI
Gratitude expression → anticipated envy → anticipated social undermining
Index of moderated mediation (LMXSC)	−.57	.23	[−1.07, −.17]
Lower LMXSC	.90	.25	[.47, 1.45]
Higher LMXSC	.33	.13	[.11, .61]

Of the 349 individuals who completed the pre-screening survey, 313 met the eligibility criteria. A total of 239 individuals participated in the main survey. We excluded 26 participants who either failed the attention checks or recalled an incident inconsistent with their assigned condition, resulting in a final sample of 213 participants.⁴ The mean age was 36.52 (SD = 12.60); 54.72% identified as female, 44.34% as male, and 0.94% as nonbinary. The average organizational tenure was 6.93 years (SD = 5.89), average dyadic tenure with the focal coworker was 4.03 years (SD = 3.91), and average dyadic tenure with the current supervisor was 4.94 years (SD = 4.32). Racial and ethnic composition of the sample was as follows: White or Caucasian (53.30%), Black or African American (27.36%), Asian American (6.60%), Hispanic or Latino American (5.19%), American Indian (1.89%), and multiple ethnicities (5.66%).

Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 3 (gratitude expression: task-related benefits, relational benefits, control condition) × 2 (LMXSC: lower vs. higher) between-subjects factorial design. First, participants were asked to recall a coworker who reports to the same supervisor as they do but who has either a better (lower LMXSC) or worse (higher LMXSC) working relationship with that supervisor. After identifying the coworker, participants were instructed to recall a specific incident in which they witnessed their coworker express gratitude to their mutual supervisor. Specifically, based on our inductive findings from our pilot study and Study 1, participants in the two gratitude expression conditions were asked to recall an event during the past month in which their coworker expressed gratitude for either task-related support (e.g., help completing a project, receiving clear guidance or direction) or relational support (e.g., personal consideration, emotional support during difficult times). In the control condition, participants recalled a time when they and their coworker engaged in small talk. Small talk was selected as a control because it represents a casual workplace interaction that typically elicits mild (i.e., low-intensity) positive or neutral affect (Methot et al., 2021), providing a theoretically appropriate baseline for investigating emotional responses to social interactions. All participants were instructed to provide a detailed description of the recalled incident. Full instructions and prompts are provided in the Appendix A.

Measures

Participants rated all survey items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). To assess envy, we utilized the same four-item (α = .92) measure developed by Schaubroeck and Lam (2004), as used in Study 1. Social undermining was measured using the same scale as in Study 1 (α = .97) (Duffy et al., 2006; Thoroughgood et al., 2022). We controlled for participants’ age, gender, and dyadic tenure with a focal coworker, consistent with prior research on envy and social undermining (e.g., Duffy et al., 2012). Unlike Study 1, which involved a fictional coworker, Study 2 focused on a real coworker, and thus dyadic tenure was additionally included as a control variable to account for potential relational history. Following Ganster et al. (2023), we controlled for clarity of recall using three items (α = .94) adapted from Fedor et al. (2001), as clearer memories may strengthen the manipulation’s effect. LMXSC (α = .97) and gratitude expression (α = .99) were measured as manipulation checks using the same measures as in Study 1.

Manipulation Checks

We assessed the effectiveness of our manipulations. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences across the three gratitude expression conditions (F(2, 210) = 75.21, p < .01, η²_ρ = .42). According to post hoc analyses, participants in both the task-related benefit condition (M = 6.54, SD = 0.61) and the relational benefit condition (M = 6.28, SD = 0.78) reported significantly higher levels of coworker gratitude expression than those in the control condition (M = 3.99, SD = 2.13). Participants in the higher LMXSC condition (M = 5.84, SD = 1.13) rated LMXSC significantly higher than those in the lower LMXSC condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.53, t(211) = −16.54, p < .01). Together, these results confirm that our manipulation was successful.

Hypotheses Testing

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations (Study 2)

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	36.52	12.60	-
2. Gender	0.44	0.50	.05	-
3. Dyadic tenure (years)	4.03	3.91	.41**	.04	-
4. Clarity of recall	5.89	1.16	.20**	−.08	.03	(.94)
5. Gratitude expression	0.66	0.48	−.07	−.04	−.03	.13	-
6. LMXSC	0.53	0.50	−.10	−.07	.02	−.02	.01	-
7. Envy	3.03	1.92	−.06	−.03	−.03	.12	.19**	−.28**	(.92)
8. Social undermining	2.30	1.63	−.08	−.06	−.14*	.09	.06	−.14*	.57**	(.97)

Note. n = 213. Reliabilities are reported in parentheses along the diagonal.

Gender: 0 = nonmale, 1 = male. Gratitude expression: 0 = control, 1 = gratitude expression for task-related or relational benefits. LMXSC: 0 = lower, 1 = higher.

^*p < .05. ^**p < .01.

As in Study 1, we combined the two gratitude expression conditions (task-related and relational benefits) into a single category for hypotheses testing.⁵ As shown in Table 6, the two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between witnessing gratitude expression (0 = control condition, 1 = gratitude expression condition) and LMXSC (0 = lower LMXSC condition, 1 = higher LMXSC condition): F(1, 209) = 5.85, p < .05, η²_ρ = .03). To further examine the interaction, we conducted pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni-adjusted p-values. For participants in the lower LMXSC condition (F(1, 209) = 14.13, p < .01, η²_ρ = .06), those in the gratitude expression condition reported significantly higher levels of envy (M = 4.07, SD = 1.85) than those in the control condition (M = 2.66, SD = 1.55). However, for participants in the higher LMXSC condition (F(1, 209) = .19, p > .05, η²_ρ = .00), envy levels did not significantly differ between the witnessing gratitude condition (M = 2.58, SD = 2.01) and the control condition (M = 2.42, SD = 1.46). A slope difference test further demonstrated that the relationship between gratitude expression and envy was significantly stronger in the lower LMXSC condition than in the higher LMXSC condition (difference = 1.33, 95% CI [.39, 2.30]). This interaction is visualized in Figure 2. Taken together, the results provide support for Hypothesis 1.

Table 6.

Results of Two-Way Analysis of Variance (Study 2)

Predictors	Envy
Predictors	F	η²_ρ
Gratitude expression	9.12**	.04
LMXSC	11.06**	.05
Gratitude expression x LMXSC	5.85*	.03

Note. Gratitude expression: control = 0, gratitude expression for task-related or relational benefits = 1. LMXSC: 0 = lower LMXSC, 1 = higher LMXSC.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

LMXSC as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Gratitude Expression and Envy (Study 2)

To test Hypothesis 2, we examined whether the indirect effect of gratitude expression on social undermining via envy was moderated by LMXSC. A bootstrapping analysis conducted in Mplus 8.1 revealed a significant index of moderated mediation (b = −.65, SE = .26, 95% CI [-1.20, −.19]) (see Table 7). The conditional indirect effect of gratitude expression on social undermining through envy was positive and significant in the lower LMXSC condition (b = .65, SE = .20, 95% CI [.30, 1.06]), but not significant in the higher LMXSC condition (b = −.00, SE = .17, 95% CI [-.34, .32], difference = .65, 95% CI [.19, 1.20]). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Table 7.

Results of Conditional Indirect Effects Analysis (Study 2)

Path	Estimate	SE	95% CI
Gratitude expression → envy → social undermining
Index of moderated mediation (LMXSC)	−.65	.26	[−1.20, −.19]
Lower LMXSC	.65	.20	[.30, 1.06]
Higher LMXSC	−.00	.17	[−.34, .32]

Discussion

The findings from Study 2 replicated and extended those of Study 1 in a real-world setting. Using a critical incident technique, we asked participants to recall a recent workplace event in which they witnessed a coworker express gratitude to their supervisor. Consistent with Study 1, the results showed that lower LMXSC strengthened the positive relationship between witnessing gratitude expression and envy. Moreover, the indirect effect on social undermining via envy was also stronger when LMXSC was lower. In contrast, these effects were not significant among employees with higher LMXSC. This discrepancy may reflect differences between experimental designs and field studies. Experimental designs, such as in Study 1, provide greater control over extraneous factors, such that observed effects are often stronger than in field studies (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019; Vanhove & Harms, 2015). By drawing on participants’ actual experiences of observing a coworker’s gratitude expression, Study 2 enhances the external validity of our model and shows that the observed effects are not artifacts of hypothetical scenarios. Moreover, controlling for recall clarity helps reduce concerns about retrospective bias and increases confidence in the robustness of the findings (Fedor et al., 2001).

General Discussion

Cultivating a grateful workplace necessitates employees’ gratitude expressions (Fehr et al., 2017). However, as we have argued, expressing gratitude toward supervisors may convey threatening upward social comparison information to third-party observers, leading them to experience envy and engage in social undermining toward their grateful coworker. Adopting a social comparison perspective, we developed and tested a theoretical model that illuminates the darker side of witnessing gratitude expressions in the workplace. Across one pilot study and two main studies—one experimental and one using a critical incident method—we found converging evidence that witnessing a coworker’s gratitude expression elicits greater envy among employees with lower (vs. higher) LMXSC, ultimately leading to greater social undermining of the grateful coworker.

Theoretical Implications

The present research offers several notable contributions to the literature. First, by adopting an observer-centered (i.e., third-party) perspective on gratitude expression and utilizing the social comparison literature as a theoretical lens, this research illuminates the “darker” side of expressing gratitude at work. Recently, scholars have called for a greater understanding of the potential negative side effects of gratitude expression in order to achieve a more balanced perspective on gratitude-related phenomena in organizations (Carr, 2016; Ksenofontov & Becker, 2020; Locklear et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2016). Indeed, existing research has predominantly focused on the positive consequences (e.g., enhanced satisfaction, engagement, and prosocial behavior) of gratitude expression (e.g., Grant & Gino, 2010; Lee et al., 2019; Sheridan & Ambrose, 2022). Such work has provided an empirical basis for organizations’ increasing adoption of gratitude-based practices (e.g., employee appreciation programs) as a way of fostering team collaboration and positive work relationships (Fehr et al., 2017). While insightful, this line of research has largely focused on gratitude expressers and recipients, overlooking the social implications of gratitude expression on those who witness such expressions. By adopting a third-party perspective, we provide a necessary shift to the extant literature, one that uncovers a potential adverse consequence of expressing gratitude at work. Specifically, our model indicates that employees’ expressions of gratitude toward their supervisor may have unflattering implications for coworkers with lower LMXSC, leading them to feel greater envy and, in turn, undermine their colleague. In doing so, our work challenges prevailing views of gratitude expression as a wholly positive phenomenon in organizations and provides a theoretical basis for understanding the broader social implications of gratitude expression for observers.

Second, our research contributes to the workplace emotions literature by offering a more nuanced theoretical understanding of the interpersonal effects of emotional expressions on third-party observers. Existing theory suggests that emotional expressions profoundly impact observers (Manstead & Fischer, 2001; Van Kleef, 2009). Theoretically, akin to how people’s emotional experiences provide information to the self, they also communicate pertinent information to observers, helping them make sense of ambiguous social situations and navigate social life (Elfenbein, 2007; Keltner & Haidt, 1999; Roseman et al., 1994). Yet, critical questions remain regarding the underlying psychological mechanisms that drive observers’ reactions to others’ emotional expressions (for review, see Van Kleef & Côté, 2022). To date, most models adopt a contagion perspective, suggesting that employees will experience the same emotions they observe from others (e.g., witnessing a happy coworker will lead one to feel happiness themselves). By integrating social functional accounts of emotions with a social comparison lens, our model illuminates the informational value of gratitude expression, thereby highlighting how certain discrete emotional expressions can influence third-party observers in ways that contrast with a contagion view. Specifically, we highlight that gratitude expression may serve as a source of social comparison information, driving emotional (i.e., envy) and behavioral (i.e., undermining) reactions that do not mirror predictions from the contagion literature. Thus, our findings further extend social functional accounts of emotions (cf. Van Kleef, 2009) by highlighting social comparison as a basic process underlying how observers react to coworkers’ gratitude expressions.

Third, we further extend the emotional expressions literature by theorizing how LMXSC moderates employees’ interpretations and reactions to a coworker’s gratitude expression. While emotions scholars have underscored the importance of moderating factors in shaping observers’ reactions to others’ emotional expressions, empirical analysis of such moderators has received little attention in the literature (Van Kleef & Côté, 2022). Notable exceptions are studies considering the characteristics of emotional expressions, such as their intensity, authenticity, and appropriateness (e.g., Wang et al., 2018). However, Van Kleef and Côté (2022) noted that emotional expressions are often embedded in ongoing relationships between people in real life, and these relationships may fundamentally shape how observers interpret and respond to the expressed emotions they witness. Building on this idea, we conceptualized LMXSC as a perceptual filter, or internal reference point, that alters how employees make sense of and respond to coworkers’ gratitude expressions toward a mutual supervisor. That is, employees with lower (vs. higher) LMXSC are more likely to interpret a coworker’s gratitude expression as threatening to the self. In this way, we suggest that LMXSC is similar to the concept of perceived controllability, or attainability, emphasized by social comparison scholars (Major et al., 1991; Mussweiler et al., 2004; Smith, 2000). Taken together, our perspective on LMXSC is noteworthy given it illuminates the importance of one’s relative relationship with a mutual supervisor in understanding how employees perceive and react to coworkers’ gratitude expressions.

Practical Implications

Our findings offer several practical implications. First, organizational leaders should recognize that encouraging gratitude expression carries both advantages and disadvantages. This is especially relevant as gratitude-based initiatives—such as employee appreciation programs—are becoming increasingly common in workplace settings, often promoted as tools for enhancing collaboration and morale (Fehr et al., 2017). Although well-intentioned, such practices can inadvertently produce negative social consequences (e.g., envy or social undermining) if implemented without awareness of their broader interpersonal impact. As such, leaders must be equipped to manage both the upsides and downsides of gratitude expression (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012; Gostick & Elton, 2020). A more balanced understanding can help organizations design gratitude practices that amplify their positive impact while minimizing unintended consequences.

Second, because gratitude expressions toward supervisors may unintentionally trigger negative third-party reactions such as envy, organizations should take steps to mitigate these social risks. One strategy is to promote greater peer-based gratitude that redirects appreciation horizontally. For example, organizations can implement peer-recognition systems, such as “thank-you” boards, rotating nominations, or digital platforms where employees can acknowledge each other’s contributions. Gratitude expressions can also be integrated into regular team routines by dedicating time in team meetings for mutual appreciation. These practices can help distribute expressions of gratitude more evenly, potentially “diluting” the effects of upward gratitude expressions toward supervisors and the threatening upward comparisons they can elicit.

Third, managers should ensure that benefit distribution feels fair. Building on i-deal research (e.g., Marescaux et al., 2021), we recommend a personalized approach that allocates recognition, support, or opportunities based on each employee’s unique preferences, needs, and values. Because what employees find desirable varies, tailored distribution can reduce the likelihood of harmful social comparisons with coworkers. Indeed, even when benefits are not distributed equally, fairness perceptions are enhanced when employees feel the process aligns with their own wishes and priorities (Marescaux et al., 2021). This relationally attuned approach can enhance perceptions of fairness, reduce negative emotional reactions, and help employees feel seen and valued on their own terms.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite its strengths, our research has several limitations that suggest directions for future research. First, all of our measures were assessed from the same source, which may raise concerns about common method variance. However, we made this decision for theoretical reasons. Specifically, our goal was to examine the effects of gratitude expressions on third-party observers. As such, it is unlikely that expressers could have reliably assessed the extent to which observers witnessed their gratitude expressions and experienced envy. Additionally, social undermining is inherently covert, making it difficult for victims to readily observe (Thoroughgood et al., 2022). Given that observability is a significant source of measurement error, third-party observers served as the best informants for reporting our study variables (Carpenter et al., 2017).

Second, although our studies provide evidence that employees predominantly express gratitude for task-related and relational benefits, we did not examine other potential features of gratitude expressions. For example, gratitude expressions can vary in intensity, frequency, and perceived authenticity—factors that may elicit stronger emotional and behavioral reactions from observers (for a review, see Locklear et al., 2023). Moreover, considering whether the benefits being acknowledged are perceived as earned or unearned offers a valuable direction for developing a more nuanced understanding of gratitude expression. For example, envy is more likely when benefits are seen as unearned, as observers may view the expresser as receiving undeserved advantages. In contrast, earned benefits may evoke feelings of inferiority or self-doubt rather than resentment. This distinction may also help clarify implicit assumptions embedded in workplace gratitude, such as whether gratitude is necessarily tied to unearned benefits. Taken together, researchers may want to further examine how various features of gratitude expression shape observers’ reactions.

Third, while our research highlights the potential dark side of witnessing gratitude expression, we acknowledge that such experiences are not uniformly detrimental and may, under certain conditions, produce positive effects on observers. To start, the direction of social comparison (i.e., upward vs. downward) depends on the observer’s perceived relative standing vis-à-vis the gratitude expresser (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Festinger, 1954; Matta & Van Dyne, 2020; Mussweiler et al., 2004). For instance, while witnessing a coworker express gratitude may signal that the coworker received a valued benefit, observers who perceive that benefit as less favorable than what they typically receive may engage in downward comparison. In such cases, observers may feel other emotions, such as pity, sympathy, or pride, rather than envy (Smith, 2000). Future studies should examine these conditions to develop a more balanced account of the effects of gratitude expression in this regard.

In a similar vein, future studies could explore alternative boundary conditions beyond LMXSC to better explain the complex reactions observers may experience. Marescaux et al. (2021, p. 339) highlighted the importance of “relationship-oriented boundary conditions” that shape fairness perceptions, which in turn influence the nature of the social comparison process. Specifically, they argued that observers’ social value orientation (i.e., prosocial vs. proself; individual-level), the quality of their relationship with the coworker (dyadic-level), and LMXSC (triadic-level) distinctively determine whether social comparisons are assimilative or contrastive in nature. While we focused on LMXSC as a triadic-level moderator, incorporating other relationship-oriented moderators may offer a more nuanced understanding of when and for whom witnessing gratitude expression elicits constructive versus harmful responses. Moreover, other contextual or dispositional factors may also shape observers’ reactions. For example, individual differences such as social comparison orientation (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999) or justice orientation (Liao & Rupp, 2005) may influence how employees interpret and respond to witnessing gratitude expression (Thau et al., 2007). Taken together, these directions would not only refine theories of social comparison and emotional expression at work but also help identify conditions under which gratitude expression functions as a relational asset rather than a liability.

Finally, while we conceptualized envy in line with seminal theory and research on this emotion (e.g., Duffy et al., 2012; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Smith & Kim, 2007), some scholars have distinguished this malicious form of envy from a harmless counterpart—benign envy (i.e., “desire for the envy object, improvement motivation, emulation of the other”; Lange et al., 2018, p. 572; see also Lange & Crusius, 2015; Van de Ven et al., 2009). Future research could examine these two forms of envy in the context of gratitude expression and investigate whether they are differentially triggered depending on characteristics of the gratitude expresser, observer, or their relationship dynamics. For example, upon witnessing a coworker express gratitude to a mutual supervisor, employees with higher LMXSC may be more likely to engage in assimilative upward social comparison. As such, they may experience benign envy that motivates effortful behaviors such as observational learning or advice seeking (Lee & Duffy, 2019), rather than engaging in undermining.

Conclusion

Research on the interpersonal effects of workplace gratitude expressions is limited but growing. Providing a more balanced view on existing research, our findings reveal the darker side of witnessing gratitude expressions from the perspective of third-party observers. Our results indicate that coworkers’ expressions of gratitude toward a mutual supervisor can elicit observers’ envy and, in turn, lead them to undermine the gratitude expresser. Overall, our investigation underscores the importance of scholars considering other vantage points on workplace gratitude expressions and the potential downsides that such expressions can have for various parties at work.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Salt in the Wound: A Social Comparison Perspective on Witnessing Coworkers’ Gratitude Expression Toward Supervisors

Salt in the Wound: A Social Comparison Perspective on Witnessing Coworkers’ Gratitude Expression Toward Supervisors by Sung Hyoun Hong and Christian N. Thoroughgood in Group & Organization Management.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to the following individuals who provided useful feedback and guidance as we conducted this research: Ashley Fulmer, Kris Byron, Chad Hartnell, and Songqi Liu.

ORCID iD

Sung Hyoun Hong

Ethical Considerations

Our studies were approved by Georgia State University’s Institutional Review Board (“The social interaction between coworkers in organizations,” H22398; “Witnessing gratitude expression at work,” H25617).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the OSF repository, .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sung Hyoun Hong is a Ph.D. candidate in the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. His research focuses on diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizations, positive organizational scholarship, and employees’ experiences of vulnerability and workplace challenges. He earned his M.S. and B.A. in Business Administration from Hanyang University.

Christian N. Thoroughgood, Ph.D., is an associate professor of management in the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University. His areas of expertise include diversity, equity, and inclusion, leadership, positive organizational behavior, and workplace mistreatment. He earned his M.S. and Ph.D. in industrial/organizational psychology from the Pennsylvania State University. His research has been published in various outlets, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processess, Journal of Management, The Leadership Quarterly, and Journal of Business Ethics, as well as featured in various media outlets, including the Harvard Business Review, The Washington Post, The Conversation, and The Atlantic. He currently serves on the editorial boards for Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Business and Psychology, and Group and Organization Management. Additionally, he has worked on large-scale research grants funded through the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and provides consulting services to organizations on issues related to employee engagement, selection and assessment, performance evaluation, training, and diversity and inclusion.

References

Aguinis

Bradley

K. J.

(2014). Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

Algoe

S. B.

Dwyer

P. C.

Younge

Oveis

(2020). A new perspective on the social functions of emotions: Gratitude and the witnessing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(1), 40–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000202

Algoe

S. B.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Gable

S. L.

(2013). The social functions of the emotion of gratitude via expression. Emotion, 13(4), 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032701

Algoe

S. B.

Kurtz

L. E.

Hilaire

N. M.

(2016). Putting the “you” in “thank you” examining other-praising behavior as the active relational ingredient in expressed gratitude. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 658–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616651681

Bass

B. M.

(1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. Free Press.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

(2009). Relative deprivation among employees in lower-quality leader-member exchange relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.001

Breidenthal

A. P.

Liu

Bai

Mao

(2020). The dark side of creativity: Coworker envy and ostracism as a response to employee creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.08.001

Buunk

A. P.

Gibbons

F. X.

(2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.007

Cameron

K. S.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(2012). The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford University Press.

10.

Carpenter

N. C.

Rangel

Jeon

Cottrell

(2017). Are supervisors and coworkers likely to witness employee counterproductive work behavior? An investigation of observability and self–observer convergence. Personnel Psychology, 70(4), 843–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12210

11.

Carr

(2016). Perspectives on gratitude: An interdisciplinary approach. Routledge.

12.

Chen

Treviño

L. K.

(2022). Promotive and prohibitive ethical voice: Coworker emotions and support for the voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 1973–1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001003

13.

Cohen-Charash

Mueller

J. S.

(2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.666

14.

Duffy

M. K.

Ganster

D. C.

Pagon

(2002). Social undermining in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331–351. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069350

15.

Duffy

M. K.

Ganster

D. C.

Shaw

J. D.

Johnson

J. L.

Pagon

(2006). The social context of undermining behavior at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.04.005

16.

Duffy

M. K.

Scott

K. L.

Shaw

J. D.

Tepper

B. J.

Aquino

(2012). A social context model of envy and social undermining. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 643–666. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0804

17.

Edwards

J. R.

Lambert

L. S.

(2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1

18.

Elfenbein

H. A.

(2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. The Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 315–386. https://doi.org/10.5465/078559812

19.

Emmons

R. A.

McCullough

M. E.

(2004). The psychology of gratitude. Oxford University Press.

20.

Fedor

D. B.

Davis

W. D.

Maslyn

J. M.

Mathieson

(2001). Performance improvement efforts in response to negative feedback: The roles of source power and recipient self-esteem. Journal of Management, 27(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(00)00087-8

21.

Fehr

Fulmer

Awtrey

Miller

J. A.

(2017). The grateful workplace: A multilevel model of gratitude in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 42(2), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0374

22.

Festinger

(1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202

23.

Gable

S. L.

Reis

H. T.

Impett

Asher

E. R.

(2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.228

24.

Ganegoda

D. B.

Bordia

(2019). I can be happy for you, but not all the time: A contingency model of envy and positive empathy in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 776–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000377

25.

Ganster

M. L.

Gabriel

A. S.

Rosen

C. C.

Simon

L. S.

Butts

M. M.

Boswell

W. R.

(2023). Retreating or repairing? Examining the alternate linkages between daily partner-instigated incivility at home and helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(5), 826–849. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001048

26.

Gibbons

F. X.

Buunk

B. P.

(1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.1.129

27.

Gostick

Elton

(2020). Leading with gratitude: Eight leadership practices for extraordinary business results. HarperCollins.

28.

Grant

A. M.

Gino

(2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 946–955. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017935

29.

Greenberg

Ashton-James

C. E.

Ashkanasy

N. M.

(2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.006

30.

Hareli

Hess

(2010). What emotional reactions can tell us about the nature of others: An appraisal perspective on person perception. Cognition & Emotion, 24(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802613828

31.

Henderson

D. J.

Wayne

S. J.

Shore

L. M.

Bommer

W. H.

Tetrick

L. E.

(2008). Leader-member exchange, differentiation, and psychological contract fulfillment: A multilevel examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012678

32.

J. I. A.

Liden

R. C.

(2013). Relative leader–member exchange within team contexts: How and when social comparison impacts individual effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 127–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12008

33.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Ilies

(2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36

34.

Keltner

Haidt

(1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 505–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999399379168

35.

Kim

Glomb

T. M.

(2014). Victimization of high performers: The roles of envy and work group identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035789

36.

Ksenofontov

Becker

J. C.

(2020). The harmful side of thanks: Thankful responses to high-power group help undermine low-power groups’ protest. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 794–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219879125

37.

Lambert

Fincham

Stillman

(2012). Gratitude and depressive symptoms: The role of positive reframing and positive emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 26(4), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.595393

38.

Lange

Crusius

(2015). Dispositional envy revisited: Unraveling the motivational dynamics of benign and malicious envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564959

39.

Lange

Weidman

A. C.

Crusius

(2018). The painful duality of envy: Evidence for an integrative theory and a meta-analysis on the relation of envy and schadenfreude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000118

40.

Lee

H. W.

Bradburn

Johnson

R. E.

Lin

S. H. J.

Chang

C. H. D.

(2019). The benefits of receiving gratitude for helpers: A daily investigation of proactive and reactive helping at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000346

41.

Lee

Duffy

M. K.

(2019). A functional model of workplace envy and job performance: When do employees capitalize on envy by learning from envied targets? Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1085–1110. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1202

42.

Liao

Rupp

D. E.

(2005). The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: A cross-level multifoci framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.242

43.

Locklear

L. R.

Sheridan

Kong

D. T.

(2023). Appreciating social science research on gratitude: An integrative review for organizational scholarship on gratitude in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(2), 225–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2624

44.

Locklear

L. R.

Taylor

S. G.

Ambrose

M. L.

(2021). How a gratitude intervention influences workplace mistreatment: A multiple mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(9), 1314–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000825

45.

Lockwood

Kunda

(1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.1.91

46.

Major

Testa

Bylsma

W. H.

(1991). Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In Suls

Wills

T. A.

(Eds.), Social comparison. Contemporary theory and research (pp. 237–260). Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

47.

Manstead

A. S. R.

Fischer

A. H.

(2001). Social appraisal: The social world as object of and influence on appraisal processes. In Scherer

K. R.

Schorr

Johnstone

(Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, research, application (pp. 221–232). Oxford University Press.

48.

Marescaux

De Winne

Rofcanin

(2021). Co-worker reactions to i-deals through the lens of social comparison: The role of fairness and emotions. Human Relations, 74(3), 329–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726719884103

49.

Matta

F. K.

Van Dyne

(2020). Understanding the disparate behavioral consequences of LMX differentiation: The role of social comparison emotions. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 154–180. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0264

50.

McCullough

M. E.

Kilpatrick

S. D.

Emmons

R. A.

Larson

D. B.

(2001). Is gratitude a moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.249

51.

Methot

J. R.

Rosado-Solomon

E. H.

Downes

P. E.

Gabriel

A. S.

(2021). Office chitchat as a social ritual: The uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at work. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1445–1471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2018.1474

52.

Mussweiler

(2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.472

53.

Mussweiler

Rüter

Epstude

(2004). The ups and downs of social comparison: Mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.832

54.

Palan

Schitter

(2018). Prolific. ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004

55.

Parrott

W. G.

Smith

R. H.

(1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906–920. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.6.906

56.

Peer

Brandimarte

Samat

Acquisti

(2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006

57.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2019). Experimental designs in management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations, and recommendations for improving publishability. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.11.002

58.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

59.

Ritzenhöfer

Brosi

Spörrle

Welpe

I. M.

(2017). Leader pride and gratitude differentially impact follower trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(6), 445–459.

60.

Ritzenhöfer

Brosi

Spörrle

Welpe

I. M.

(2019). Satisfied with the job, but not with the boss: Leaders' expressions of gratitude and pride differentially signal leader selfishness, resulting in differing levels of followers' satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1185–1202.

61.

Roseman

I. J.

Wiest

Swartz

T. S.

(1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.2.206

62.

Sardeshmukh

S. R.

Vandenberg

R. J.

(2017). Integrating moderation and mediation: A structural equation modeling approach. Organizational Research Methods, 20(4), 721–745. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115621609

63.

Sawyer

K. B.

Thoroughgood

C. N.

Stillwell

E. E.

Duffy

M. K.

Scott

K. L.

Adair

E. A.

(2022). Being present and thankful: A multi-study investigation of mindfulness, gratitude, and employee helping behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(2), 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000903

64.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S.

(2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees' invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.01.001

65.

Sheridan

Ambrose

M. L.

(2022). My cup runneth over: A daily study of the energy benefits for supervisors who feel appreciated by their subordinates. Journal of Management, 48(2), 440–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320967104

66.

Smith

R. H.

(2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward comparisons. In Suls

J. M.

Wheeler

(Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 173–200). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

67.

Smith

R. H.

Kim

S. H.

(2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.46

68.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin, 47(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053857

69.

Suls

Martin

Wheeler

(2002). Social comparison: Why, with whom, and with what effect? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00191

70.

Tai

Narayanan

McAllister

D. J.

(2012). Envy as pain: Rethinking the nature of envy and its implications for employees and organizations. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.5465/armr.2009.0484

71.

Tang

P. M.

Ilies

S. S.

Lin

K. J.

Lee

Trombini

(2022). How and when service beneficiaries’ gratitude enriches employees’ daily lives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 987–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000975

72.

Thau

Aquino

Wittek

(2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.250

73.

Thoroughgood

C. N.

Lee

Sawyer

K. B.

Zagenczyk

T. J.

(2022). Change is coming, time to undermine? Examining the countervailing effects of anticipated organizational change and coworker exchange quality on the relationship between Machiavellianism and social undermining at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04943-9

74.

Thoroughgood

C. N.

Sawyer

K. B.

Kong

D. T.

Webster

J. R.

(2024). Oppositional courage for racial and ethnic minorities: A source of white employees’ upward moral comparison. Journal of Management, Article 01492063241241312.

75.

Thoroughgood

C. N.

Sawyer

K. B.

Webster

J. R.

(2021). Because you’re worth the risks: Acts of oppositional courage as symbolic messages of relational value to transgender employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 399–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000515

76.

Tse

H. H.

Lam

C. K.

Lin

X. S.

(2018). Examining the interpersonal process and consequence of leader–member exchange comparison: The role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), 922–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2268

77.

Van de Ven

Zeelenberg

Pieters

(2009). Leveling up and down: The experiences of benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015669

78.

Vanhove

A. J.

Harms

P. D.

(2015). Reconciling the two disciplines of organisational science: A comparison of findings from lab and field research. Applied Psychology, 64(4), 637–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12046

79.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Côté

(2022). The social effects of emotions. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 629–658. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-010855

80.

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x

81.

Vidyarthi

P. R.

Liden

R. C.

Anand

Erdogan

Ghosh

(2010). Where do I stand? Examining the effects of leader–member exchange social comparison on employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 849–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020033

82.

Wang

Restubog

Shao

Van Kleef

G. A.

(2018). Does anger expression help or harm leader effectiveness? The role of competence-based versus integrity-based violations and abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1050–1072. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0460

83.

Watkins

P. C.

(2013). Gratitude and the good life: Toward a psychology of appreciation. Springer Science & Business Media.

84.

Wood

A. M.

Emmons

R. A.

Algoe

S. B.

Froh

J. J.

Lambert

N. M.

Watkins

(2016). A dark side of gratitude? Distinguishing between beneficial gratitude and its harmful impostors for the positive clinical psychology of gratitude and well-being. In Wood

A. M.

Johnson

(Eds.), The Wiley handbook of positive clinical psychology (pp. 137–151). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

85.

Zhao

Liu

(2019). Leader–member exchange, organizational identification, and knowledge hiding: The moderating role of relative leader–member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 834–848. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2359

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.52 MB