Dispositional Malicious Envy and Workplace Deviance: Divergent Thinking as a Mediator

Abstract

In the extant scholarship, researchers have claimed that malicious envy has a significant relationship with workplace deviance. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of scholarship detailing how employees can display workplace deviance in an organizational context without being caught. This study aims to examine an association between dispositional malicious envy and workplace deviance, mediated by divergent thinking through the lens of social comparison theory. Data was collected via a cross-sectional survey from employees (N = 363) working in Pakistan’s banking and telecom sector. The study results reveal that dispositional malicious envy can lead to workplace deviance via the divergent thinking mediation effect. This study adds to the limited scholarship about how dispositional malicious envy relates to workplace deviance in the organizational setting, particularly when employees make lateral comparisons.

Keywords

dispositional malicious envy social comparison theory workplace deviance divergent thinking

Introduction

Throughout history, envy has proven to be a complicated emotion to understand (Duffy et al., 2021; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2007; Parrott & Smith, 1993; Smith et al., 2008; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). González-Navarro et al. (2018) and Tai et al. (2012) underscored that envy has a significant linkage with employees’ behaviors, contributing to workplace outcomes. For example, Duffy et al. (2021) underscored that envious emotion might transform into behavioral reactions intended to reduce the agony of envy in the workplace environment. Further, numerous scholars have claimed that envious emotion has two faces: benign envy (Ahn et al., 2023, Fam et al., 2020, Lange & Crusius, 2015; Rawls, 1999; Van de Ven, 2016) and malicious envy (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Lange & Crusius, 2015; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). Benign envy has a relationship with upward-targeted behaviors (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Lange & Crusius, 2015; Van de Ven, 2016; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). For example, benign envy can motivate an employee to perform better than other employees in an organization (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Lange & Crusius, 2015). On the other hand, malicious envy has a relationship with downward behaviors (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Lange & Crusius, 2015; Van de Ven, 2016; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). For instance, malicious envy could associate with illogical decision-making and hampered teamwork (Brooks et al., 2019; Tai et al., 2012). Hence, researchers consider malicious envy as a negative emotion, having an association with undesirable outcomes for an organization (Crusius & Lange, 2014; Tai et al., 2012).

Due to varying human nature, it is challenging to measure malicious envy. Thereby, many scholars have used the disposition (i.e., inherent inclination) to envy as a construct to measure it (Medeiros et al., 2016; Xiang et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018). Researchers have empirically established that dispositional envy exists, and it has a relationship with critical psychological and behavioral variables (Medeiros et al., 2016; Xiang et al., 2017; Yu et al., 2018). Lange et al. (2018) defined dispositional envy as individuals’ stable tendency to respond to status comparison with others via a behavior. Further, Lange and Crusius (2015) defined dispositional malicious envy as a negative emotion that has a relationship with adverse behaviors. For instance, dispositional malicious envy triggered in organizational settings could significantly affect counter-productive work behaviors (e.g., workplace deviance) (González-Navarro et al., 2018; Tai et al., 2012; Vecchio, 1995). Nonetheless, there remains a paucity of scholarship regarding constructs defining the relationship between dispositional malicious envy and workplace deviance in the organizational context. Silvia et al. (2011) highlighted that some emotions having negative connotations could have a strong relationship with creativity. Hence, constructs measuring creativity might have a relationship with negative emotions, such as dispositional malicious envy in an organizational setting.

Divergent thinking remains one of the core constructs used to measure creativity. Madore et al. (2016) described divergent thinking as a process of trying to solve an issue via multiple creative means. Additionally, scholars have defined divergent thinking as an inconsistent and impulsive response individuals express in a specific context to satisfy their emotions or feelings (J. M. George & Zhou, 2007; Gino & Ariely, 2012). For instance, Gino and Wiltermuth (2014) argued that dishonesty might lead to creativity. Silvia et al. (2011) also elucidated that negative constructs related to facets, such as hostility and arrogance, can be associated with creativity. In addition, the subjective evidence hinting at an association between negative emotions (e.g., envy) and divergent thinking comes from the representation of an evil genius (Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014; Wickelgren, 2012). The character of the evil genius is frequently portrayed in popular media avenues, such as theater, novels, poetry, and humorous books (Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014; Wickelgren, 2012). An evil genius is an individual who wishes for ambitious outcomes and uses negative but creative means to achieve those outcomes (Gino & Wiltermuth, 2014; Wickelgren, 2012).

The purpose of this study was to answer a research question exploring whether the relationship between dispositional malicious envy and workplace deviance is being mediated by divergent thinking using the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954). To achieve this purpose, we conducted a study in Pakistan within the two sectors where employees are competing vigorously: banking and telecom. In this study, we have endeavored to explain divergent thinking distinctly by connecting it to negative emotions (i.e., dispositional malicious envy). Therefore, we aim to highlight the dual nature of the construct of divergent thinking in a competitive environment. This study’s theoretical contribution is to elucidate how dispositional malicious envy is actually related to workplace deviance by the mediation effect of divergent thinking in an organizational scenario.

Literature Review

In the extant scholarship, organizational behavior researchers have focused on the relationship between moods, feelings, and creativity (Abele, 1992; Gino & Ariely, 2012; Hernández-Jorge et al., 2020; Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997; Vosburg, 1998). Vosburg (1998) underscored that individuals’ moods have a significant direct relationship with creativity. Likewise, in their quasi-experimental study, Kaufmann and Vosburg (1997) found that positive moods might hinder creativity while negative moods might enhance task performance. Vosburg (1998) also argued that negative moods promote optimizing behavior, which leads to the enhancement of task performance. Thus, negative moods might have a relationship with elevating performance. However, missing from the previous research is how negative emotions (e.g., envy) can lead to positive task performance or creativity (e.g., divergent thinking) in a collectivistic society such as Pakistan.

Overall, researchers have previously focused on portraying creativity as a positive construct having beneficial outcomes (Khessina et al., 2018; Madore et al., 2016). For instance, Tan et al. (2021) highlighted that creativity might have an association with the subjective well-being of individuals. Similarly, it has been considered by some scholars that creativity can be triggered by positive emotions. However, Breidenthal et al. (2020) claimed that there could be a relationship between creativity and negative emotions, such as coworker envy. Breidenthal et al. (2020) also argued that relative creativity could decrease coworker envy. Thus, Breidenthal et al. (2020) took creativity as a predictor of envy. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of research on how the emotion of envy can predict creativity in a Pakistani environment. In the study, we have used the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) to untangle how envious emotion can affect creative outcomes (divergent thinking) and workplace deviance.

Social Comparison Theory

Researchers have previously used social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) to untangle the experienced happiness of individuals (Liao, 2021). In addition, Hu et al. (2021) employed social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) to understand depression among adolescents in the gaming environment. Similarly, Ruggieri et al. (2021) utilized social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) to decipher the role of online social comparison on people’s mental stress and life satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social comparison theory’s central thesis is that individuals assess themselves with others (Festinger, 1954). This comparison of people has an effect on various types of emotions and feelings (Ahn et al., 2023; Matta & Van Dyne, 2020; Morse & Gergen, 1970; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). The group with which individuals compare themselves is known as the reference group. Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory proposes three types of assessments: upward, downward, and lateral social comparison (Corcoran et al., 2011; Rahimi et al., 2017). The upward comparison is described as an individual’s propensity to compare themselves with someone in an upward position (Corcoran et al., 2011; Rahimi et al., 2017). For instance, individuals might compare themselves with people having more wealth, health, or social standing. Corcoran et al. (2011) have argued that sometimes upward comparison might lead to individuals having a sense of inferiority. Thus, the upward comparison is often elated to people developing negative self-concepts. This condition is at times identified as the contrast effect (Corcoran et al., 2011). Researchers have reported that upward social comparison might elicit a negative (e.g., malicious) form of envy among individuals (Alicke & Zell, 2008; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020).

The downward comparison is related to individuals’ propensity to compare themselves better than others due to some type of social status defined by society (Corcoran et al., 2011; Festinger, 1954; Rahimi et al., 2017). The downward comparison can lead to developing a positive self-concept or uniformity; this state of an individual is occasionally known as the assimilation effect (Corcoran et al., 2011; Mussweiler, 2001). Finally, lateral or horizontal comparison is defined as an individual’s attempt to compare themselves to someone having equal social status (Corcoran et al., 2011; Rahimi et al., 2017). For example, employees might compare themselves with other employees having the same organizational hierarchical position. There remains a theoretical gap in the literature to understand how lateral comparison can trigger negative emotions, such as envy and its relationship with various adverse outcomes.

Aristotle et al. (1954) defined envy as the state of sensitivity caused by the other individual’s superior fate (Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). In addition, Parrott and Smith (1993) described envy as a multifaceted poignant condition existing in a situation when an individual wishfully desires for qualities or possessions a person lacks but perceives that others possess. Rawls (1999) and Van de Ven and Zeelenberg (2020) argued that envy could have a positive effect (i.e., benign envy), as it can motivate individuals to achieve desired objects. This argument is backed by the empirical findings that envy can escalate personal efforts (Khan & Noor, 2020; Schaubroeck & Lam, 2004; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020). For instance, Lee et al. (2017), in their study, empirically showed that positive emotional experiences from being envied could lead to work engagement and performance among employees. In contrast, dispositional malicious envy is related to antagonistic and resentful behaviors (Duffy et al., 2012; Lange & Crusius, 2015; Smith et al., 1999; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020).

Researchers have argued that one can observe dispositional malicious envy at every level of an organization (González-Navarro et al., 2018; Lange et al., 2018). González-Navarro et al. (2018) underscored that envious emotion is prominent in employees due to the scarcity of resources in organizations. Similarly, Khan and Noor (2020) and Vecchio (2000) highlighted that individuals exhibit malicious envy in a competitive environment. Bolló et al. (2020) elucidated that malicious envy among individuals might trigger when they feel that people in superior positions have some unjustifiable advantages. Hence, malicious envy can be a socio-functional emotion (Silver & Sabini, 1978; Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020) needed by employees to gain fairness in the organization (Colquitt & Zipay, 2015). Likewise, employees can resolve the disparity in an organization via reinstating fairness by expressing negative behaviors like workplace deviance. Awee et al. (2020) claimed that envious emotion triggered among employees in the workplace environment could have a relationship with employees’ social loafing. Thus, envious emotion can have a relationship with counter-productive work behaviors, such as workplace deviance (González-Navarro et al., 2018). Workplace deviance is defined as voluntary behavior through which employees violate normative expectations of the social context (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Kaplan, 1975). Scholars have previously empirically established a significant relationship between dispositional malicious envy and counter-productive work behaviors (e.g., workplace deviance) (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; González-Navarro et al., 2018; Vecchio, 1995). Hence, in line with previous scholarship, we maintain that dispositional malicious envy positively influences workplace deviance.

Hypothesis (H1). There is a significant positive relationship between dispositional malicious envy and workplace deviance.

Although the extant literature, theoretically and empirically, supports that dispositional malicious envy has a relationship with counter-productive work behaviors (e.g., workplace deviance) (Cohen-Charash et al., 2007; González-Navarro et al., 2018; Khan & Noor, 2020; Vecchio, 1995), there remains a gap in understanding how employees show workplace deviance without facing any significant organizational repercussion. Hence, there is a lack of research regarding constructs that can define the relationship between malicious envy and workplace deviance. Previously, scholars have noted that employees show dispositional envy in the competitive market-culture environment (Khan & Noor, 2020). Duffy et al. (2021) argued that workplace competition and comparisons could trigger envy among employees. Nevertheless, Porter (1980) argued that an organization’s core goal is to remain competitive against its rivals in the market culture environment.

Furthermore, scholars have reported that task conflict (Yong et al., 2014) and competition (Paulus, 2000) can positively affect creative thoughts (i.e., divergent thinking). Researchers also have highlighted that divergent thinking is an emotional outcome that focuses on creating novel and expedient thoughts in a particular environment setting (Amabile, 1996; Handel, 2019). In addition, malevolent emotions could help define employees’ creative means of acquiring certain objects. Hence, envy could be associated with divergent thinking because a creative person’s main challenge remains to be in the limelight, which makes an individual consistently compare themselves to others.

Hypothesis (H2). There is a significant positive relationship between dispositional malicious envy and divergent thinking.

Recently, we have seen various examples of organizations, like Enron and Tyco, where top leadership has been involved in workplace deviance using creative means (Appelbaum et al., 2005). Researchers have claimed that morally complex individuals are sometimes more inventive than are honest individuals (Gino & Ariely, 2012). Similarly, Gino and Ariely (2012) proposed a positive relationship between creativity (e.g., divergent thinking) and dishonest behavior, depending on the individual’s personality traits and immediate environmental cues. Hence, one of the antecedents of workplace deviance can be divergent thinking.

Hypothesis (H3). There is a significant positive relationship between divergent thinking and workplace deviance.

Scholars reasoned that dispositional malicious envy is triggered in a competitive organizational setting (Khan & Noor, 2020). Further, researchers have claimed that dispositional envy has a relationship with counter-productive work behaviors (González-Navarro et al., 2018; Vecchio, 1995). For example, Sayğan-Yağiz (2020) investigated the relationship between dispositional envy and knowledge sharing. The author found a significant negative relationship between both constructs (i.e., dispositional envy and knowledge sharing) (Sayğan-Yağiz, 2020). Meaning people exhibiting dispositional malicious envy might not have a collaborative attitude in a team situation (Chu et al., 2021; Sayğan-Yağiz, 2020). Similarly, other researchers have underscored a significant positive relationship between dispositional envy and workplace deviant behaviors (González-Navarro et al., 2018; Vecchio, 1995). While there is also a scholarly discourse highlighting the relationship between emotions and divergent thinking (Chermahini & Hommel, 2011; Zuo et al., 2021). However, missing from the extant scholarship is an understanding of how employees protect themselves from any organizational repercussions while they exhibit negative malicious envy. On the other hand, the previous body of knowledge also hints at a relationship between divergent thinking and dishonest behavior (e.g., corrupt practices) (Gino & Ariely, 2012). Therefore, in the current study, we propose that divergent thinking mediates between envious emotion and workplace deviance (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A theoretical model to define the relationship between deviant workplace behavior and the emotion of dispositional malicious envy in organizational settings.

Hypothesis (H4). Divergent thinking mediates the relationship between dispositional envy and workplace deviance.

Method

Participants

In this study, we recruited sales department employees (N = 363) from the telecom and banking sectors’ of Pakistan (i.e., Islamabad and Rawalpindi). The total respondents from the banking sector comprise 250 individuals, with an 81% response rate. Further, we include a sample of 113 responses with a response rate of 86% from telecom companies. There was five additional response having missing values; we discarded them from the analysis. The demographic information highlighted that most of the respondents were mid-career sales employees within the age bracket of 26 to 30 (N = 161, 44.35%: see Table 1). We did not collect gender information because most sales employees in Pakistan are men. Out of N = 363, most of the employees had 6 to 10 years of sales experience (N = 164, 45.17%).

Table 1.

Demographic Analysis (N = 363).

Demographics	Category	No. of respondents	Percentages %
Age	20–25	53	14.60
	26–30	161	44.35
	31–35	67	18.45
	36–40	58	15.97
	Above 40	24	6.61
Professional experience	0–5 years	50	13.77
	6–10 years	174	47.93
	11–15 years	59	16.26
	16–20 years	66	18.18
	Above 20 years	14	3.80
Sales experience	0–5 years	50	13.77
	6–10 years	164	45.17
	11–15 years	69	19.00
	16–20 years	65	17.90
	Above 20 years	15	4.13
The current sector of employment	Banking	250	68.87
The current sector of employment	Telecom	113	31.12

Procedure

Memon et al. (2017) argued that no particular sampling technique is superior to the other technique. The banks and telecom companies were selected based on the non-probability sampling technique (convenience sampling). Though, the employees within the organization were recruited by using a simple random sampling technique. The convenience sampling method was used because it was physically and financially impossible for the research team to visit each bank branch across Pakistan (Memon et al., 2017). Researchers have previously argued that a cautiously conducted convenience sampling study can offer valid and reliable results (Cooper & Schindler, 2011; Memon et al., 2017). Data were collected only once via a questionnaire. Hence, we used a cross-sectional research design for the study. We collected data during a period of 6 months in 2016 to 2017. We distributed the questionnaire on the spot. A box was placed in the offices in which employees could drop the survey. All respondents participated in the study on a volunteer basis.

We selected participants from the banking and telecom sectors in Pakistan due to intense competition among employees and momentous growth in the two sectors. Scholars have previously argued that competition can cause malicious envy (Van de Ven et al., 2011; Vecchio, 2000). The Pakistani banking sector at that time (i.e., 2016–2017) consisted of 31 types having four subcategories: public (5), foreign (4), and private banks having both conventional and Islamic banking systems (22). Public banks were excluded from the sample, as the public bank employees are on the government payroll and do not have to face fierce competition. After exclusions, seventeen conventional and five Islamic banks constituted the sampling population of our study. In the telecom sector, five large cellular operators, which deal with Business-to-Business and Business-to-Customer solutions, were included in the population. Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) table was initially used to determine the sample size.

Measures

We used existing valid scales. The scales were in English; we did not translate the original scales into Urdu (i.e., Pakistan’s national language).

Malicious Envy

The Dispositional Envy Scale (DES) by Smith et al. (1999), comprising 8 items, was adapted to measure malicious envy. The DES (Smith et al., 1999) is a well-cited scale measuring the disposition to malicious envy emotion in an organizational scenario. The DES measures inferiority, ill will, frustration, and perception of equity. We asked participants to respond to statements such as, “It is so frustrating to see some people succeed so easily.” Participants responded on a scale from 1 (= “strongly disagree”) to 5 (= “strongly agree”). The internal consistency (α = .711) estimate for the measure was acceptable (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Divergent Thinking

The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale-RIBS (Runco et al., 2001) was adapted to measure divergent thinking with 22 items. Previously, scholars have highlighted that RIBS is a better self-reported scale to measure divergent thinking as compared to previous divergent thinking tests having moderate predictive validity. We asked participants to respond to statements such as, “It is important to be able to think of bizarre and wild possibilities.” Items were anchored by a 5- point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (= “never”) to 5 (= “very often”). The internal consistency (α = .864) estimate for the measure was acceptable (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Workplace Deviance

Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) workplace deviance scale were adapted to measure workplace deviance with 20 items. We asked participants to respond to statements like, “I falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than I spent on business expenses.” Items were anchored by a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (= “never”) to 5 (= “daily”). The internal consistency (α = .864) estimate for the measure was acceptable (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Data Analysis

We calculated means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all variables. In addition, we calculated the skewness and kurtosis values to discuss data normal univariate distribution (D. George & Mallery, 2010). We conducted Harman’s single factor test to explore the common method bias (Tehseen et al., 2017). We also report measures taken to prevent non-response and social desirability bias. A simple regression was conducted in the SPSS 27.00 to test H1, H2, and H3. Next, Preacher and Hayes’s (2004, 2008) macros PROCESS was used for testing the mediation analysis.

Research Biases

Common Method Bias-Harman’s Single Factor Test

We used only a single source (i.e., a survey questionnaire) to collect the data. Therefore, the study was prone to have a common method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998). A pilot test was conducted on 50 employees to ensure that there were no ambiguous or unnecessary questions (Tehseen et al., 2017). Additionally, the definition of constructs was incorporated into the questionnaire to avoid any confusion (Reio, 2010; Tehseen et al., 2017). Lastly, we performed Harman’s single factor test to explore common method bias (Tehseen et al., 2017).

Harman’s single factor test is performed after the data collection to observe whether a single factor is the cause of variance (Tehseen et al., 2017). The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was done in SPSS 27.00 to conduct this test. All items were put under one factor, and the observed variance extracted was 22.97%. Hence, the results indicated that no single factor explained the variance in the model above 60%, suggesting that the study does not suffer from common method bias.

Non-Response Bias

Whitehead et al. (1993) argued that non-response bias is a significant problem for a survey study. The non-response bias is defined as individuals’ unwillingness to respond to a survey because of factors that make them different from the respondents (Whitehead et al., 1993). Whitehead et al. (1993) underscored that non-response could be of three types: unit non-response, item non-response, and pro-test non-response. Researchers, via descriptive analysis, can find the trends of non-response. In the data, we did not find any trend of individuals not replying to a particular question. Thus, the item-non response and pro-test non-response were not an issue. The response rate from both the selected bank branches and telecom companies was above 80%, which shows that this study is not affected by the unit non-response bias (Whitehead et al., 1993).

Social Desirability Bias

The social desirability bias is defined as respondents’ tendency to answer survey questions so that they can be viewed favorably (Larson, 2019). Researchers have previously claimed that anonymous and self-administered surveys reduce social desirability bias (Larson, 2019). In this study, we used self-administered surveys. Further, in the questionnaire, we mentioned that there are no right answers. Finally, the anonymity and confidentiality of the respondents were taken into consideration.

Results

Descriptive Analysis and Bivariate Correlation

The descriptive statistics are illustrated in Table 1. The three variables had a mean score that was signiﬁcantly higher than the midpoint of the scale. Though, the mean value of divergent thinking (M = 3.07, Skewness = .95, Kurtosis = 1.20) was low as compared to dispositional malicious envy (M = 3.32, Skewness = .83, Kurtosis = −.05) and workplace deviance (M = 3.64, Skewness = .25, Kurtosis = −.28). The results indicate almost similar scores of dispositional malicious envy, workplace deviance, and divergent thinking on the standard error term. If the values of Skewness and Kurtosis for the variables are between −2 and +2, it is suggested that the data follows normal univariate distribution (D. George & Mallery, 2010). Our study results illustrate that data followed normal univariate distribution (D. George & Mallery, 2010). The result of the bivariate correlation (Table 1) indicates a positive relationship between the three hypothesized variables. Finally, the results of the bivariate correlation were below the level of multi-collinearity concerns, r ≥ .80 (Field, 2009) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Bivariate Correlations.

Item	1	2	3
Malicious envy	—
Divergent thinking	.72**	—
Workplace deviance	.31**	.43**	—
M	3.32	3.07	3.64
SD	.78	.68	.69
Skewness	.83	.95	.25
Kurtosis	−.05	1.20	−.28

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

Hypothesis Testing

A simple linear regression was employed to test the H1, H2, and H3 (see Table 3). The results showed (F = 40.24, R² = 0.10, β = .31, t = 6.34, p < .01) that there is a positive significant relationship between malicious envy and workplace deviance (H1). Further, H2, which predicted the association between malicious envy and divergent thinking was found to have a positive significant relationship (F = 402.57, R² = 0.52, β = .72, t = 20.06, p < .01). The divergent thinking also had a positive significant relationship with workplace deviance, supporting H3 (F = 85.81, β = .43, R² = 0.19, t = 9.26, p < .01]. Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) approach was used to test the mediation model (see Table 4). In the current study, the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effects was used with 5,000 bootstraps resamples by employing Hayes’s (2016) Model 4. Overall, the model was significant when both variables were taken into consideration (i.e., malicious envy and divergent thinking) (F = 42.78, R² = 0.19, p < .01). However, malicious envy when placed together with the divergent thinking gives insignificant results (β = −.002, t = −0.04 p = .96), meaning, in the current study divergent thinking fully mediates (β = .28, UL = 0.37: LL = 0.18, p < .01) between malicious envy and workplace deviance, which supports H4. The value of the indirect effect size is given in Figure 2.

Table 3.

Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Relationships	β	t-Value	R ²	Decision
ME → WD	.31	6.34	0.10	Supported (H1)
ME → DT	.72	20.06	0.52	Supported (H2)
DT → WD	.43	9.26	0.19	Supported (H3)

Note. ME = Malicious Envy; DT = divergent thinking; WD = workplace deviance.

Table 4.

Mediation Analysis Testing.

Relationships	β	R ²	LLCI	ULCI	Decision
ME → DT → WDB	.28	0.19	0.18	0.37	Supported (H4)

Figure 2.

Mediating model examining the direct and indirect relation of the emotion of dispositional malicious envy with workplace deviance through the mediation effect of divergent thinking.

Discussion

In the organizational setting, envious emotion is found to be widely present, especially in organizations where there is intense competition among employees (González-Navarro et al., 2018; Khan & Noor, 2020). Researchers have previously argued that intense competition among individuals lead to social comparison (Hoffman et al., 1954; Piest & Schreck, 2021). This claim of scholars regarding social comparison in the competitive organizational environment among employees could be answered via Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory. Festinger (1954) underscored that individuals have an inherent motivation to assess themselves, often compared to other people, which can elicit various emotions (e.g., envy). Researchers using Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory have explored how various destructive emotions are allied to people’s social evaluation (Van de Ven & Zeelenberg, 2020; White et al., 2006). For example, Alicke and Zell (2008) expanded Festinger’s (1954) social comparison theory by claiming that comparisons sometimes are expected to engender negative envy. Our study results validate previous investigations by elucidating that social comparisons among employees produce envious emotion in an organizational setting having intense competition. Nevertheless, we contribute to the scholarship by deciphering that lateral social comparison can incite malicious envy, which relates to workplace deviance (H1).

Spector et al. (2006) defined counter-productive work behaviors as intentional harmful behaviors that could negatively affect organizations. Workplace deviance is one of the counter-productive work behaviors, which can lead to negative consequences for organizations. González-Navarro et al. (2018) previously underlined that envious emotion has a significant relationship with counter-productive work behaviors. Nonetheless, most of the previous investigations about envious emotion are conducted in Western countries. We found that malicious envy has a significant relationship with workplace deviance even outside the Western context (e.g., Pakistan) (H1). However, further scholarship is warranted to understand the relationship between benign envy and workplace deviance in the non-Western context, especially in a scenario when employees make lateral comparisons. Thus, our study opens a new avenue to explore how cultural context might shape envious emotion.

Furthermore, the primary aim of this study was to unveil how malicious envy is related to workplace deviance in an organizational scenario. The study results unveil that employees can use divergent thinking to exhibit workplace deviance (H4). This aids in deciphering why employees do not get caught while exhibiting deviant behavior in an organization. Notably, divergent thinking is considered a positive construct in the extant scholarship, having a relationship with positive outcomes (J. M. George & Zhou, 2007; Madore et al., 2016). This study adds to the theory by elucidating how divergent thinking can be related to negative outcomes (workplace deviance) (H3). This paves the way to explore further how actually divergent thinking can be related to adverse outcomes in an organizational setting when employees make lateral comparisons (Kaufmann & Vosburg, 1997; Vosburg, 1998).

The results also elucidate a positive relationship between malicious envy and divergent thinking (H2), which on the one hand, highlights the complex and varied nature of divergent thinking (Gino & Ariely, 2012; Mumford & Gustafson, 1988). On the other hand, it supports the argument that creativity is not a single-natured construct (Vosburg, 1998). This also illustrates that malicious envy can be associated with varied outcomes. In the future, scholars can further expand how malicious envy might be related to constructs, which are commonly supposed to have positive connotations. Overall, the study adds to the limited scholarship about the presence of malicious envy and its relationship with workplace deviance in an organizational setting. Based on our study results, we argue that managers should be focusing on reducing malicious envy emotion among employees rather than focusing on developing rules to control workplace deviance.

Limitation and Future Studies

Due to the cross-sectional survey design, the study does not give a complete picture. In the future, researchers can employ longitudinal or experimental study designs. We used a non-probability sampling technique (i.e., convenience sampling) to identify organizations for data collection, which is an important limitation of the current study. In the future, researchers can adopt rigorous sampling techniques to explore the theoretical relationship given in this study. In addition, we took data from two sectors; researchers can explore our findings in other areas and industries. Furthermore, in the future, researchers can focus on multi-sector testing of the model. Scholars can also examine variables like gender and other controlled variables.

In the current study, we have taken only one face of envy (e.g., malicious envy); in the future, the other face of envy (benign envy) could be investigated. Lastly, researchers have argued that the emotion of envy could take a different trajectory in various cultures, and its intensity depends on the social structure in which an individual is living (Ahn et al., 2023; Lindholm, 2008). Despite the growing scholarly interest in exploring the construct of envy in individualistic societies, there remains a scarcity of scholarship about how in collectivist cultures, individuals respond to the dispositional malicious envy. Although Pakistan is a collectivistic country per Hofstede et al.’s (2010) criterion, we did not measure how culture might have influenced the theoretical relationship explored. Therefore, scholars can measure the influence of culture on the proposed relationship between envious emotion and divergent thinking in the future.

Conclusion and Implications

The study adds to the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) by deciphering that lateral comparison can elicit malicious envy. The study also gives a new direction and empirical support to scholars about how the negative emotion of envy is related to divergent thinking in an organization. Previously, researchers have claimed that divergent thinking might have a positive relationship with emotions (Chermahini & Hommel, 2011; Zuo et al., 2021). For instance, Chermahini and Hommel (2011) and Zuo et al. (2021) claimed that divergent thinking might trigger positive emotions. However, in our study results, we found an opposite finding concerning negative emotion of dispositional malicious envy triggering divergent thinking. Therefore, we argue that divergent thinking, which is commonly taken as a positive construct in the literature and considered an essential factor in organizational growth (West & Anderson, 1996), needs further exploration. Therefore, our study results provide new evidence about divergent thinking being a dual-nature construct.

The study results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between workplace deviance and divergent thinking. The results show that employees via divergent thinking exhibit workplace deviance. Hence, this study paves the way for managers to understand how individuals creatively dodge organizational norms while exhibiting negative behaviors. Thus, managers should try to find different ways to reduce malicious envy among employees rather than concentrating on developing rules to control workplace deviance. Additionally, the manager can use this study results to ponder upon the dark sides of divergent thinking and what can trigger (e.g., envy) those dark sides. Overall, as appealing as the concept of evil genius having divergent ideas may sound, if envy in an organization is not controlled, it may backfire and have significant negative effects on the organization in the form of workplace deviance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Dr. George Cunningham (Texas A&M University, gbcunningham@tamu.edu) for providing his insight about the data analysis of the study, with his permission; he is not listed as the author of the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Consideration

Note

Consent Informed

The data presented is part of the primary investigator’s master’s thesis. Data and research have not been published before in any scholarly journal. The study was approved by the COMSATS University, Islamabad (CIIT/FA13-RMS-004/ISB). We took written consent from all of the participants of the study.

ORCID iD

Umer Hussain

References

Abele

(1992). Positive versus negative mood influences on problem-solving: A review. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 23(3), 187–202.

Ahn

Y.-W.

M.-S.

Kim

Sarigollu

(2023). A cross-cultural study on envy premium: The role of mixed emotions of benign and malicious envies. Current Psychology, 42, 3362–3371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01679-7

Alicke

M. D.

Zell

(2008). Social comparison and envy. In Smith

R. H.

(Ed.), Series in affective science. Envy: Theory and research (pp. 73–93). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/9780195327953.003.0005

Amabile

T. M.

(1996). Creativity in context: Update to” the social psychology of creativity.”Westview Press.

Appelbaum

S. H.

Deguire

K. J.

Lay

(2005). The relationship of ethical climate to deviant workplace behaviour. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 5(4), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700510616587

Aristotle, Solmsen

Bywater

Roberts

W. R.

(1954). The rhetoric and the poetics of Aristotle ( Roberts

W. R.

, Trans.). Modern Library.

Awee

Mohsin

F. H.

Mohamed Makhbul

Z. K.

(2020). The factors why people exert less: The relationship between workplace envy and social loafing moderated by self-esteem. International Journal of Management Studies, 27 (2), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms.27.2.2020.7523

Bennett

R. J.

Robinson

S. L.

(2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349

Bolló

Háger

D. R.

Galvan

Orosz

(2020). The role of subjective and objective social status in the generation of envy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 513495. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513495

10.

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

11.

Brooks

A. W.

Huang

Abi-Esber

Buell

R. W.

Huang

Hall

(2019). Mitigating malicious envy: Why successful individuals should reveal their failures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(4), 667–687. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000538

12.

Chermahini

S., A.

Hommel

(2011). Creative mood swings: Divergent and convergent thinking affect mood in opposite ways. Psychological Research, 76(5), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0358-z

13.

Chu

Zhang

Liu

(2021). How does individual-level envy affect team creativity? Effects of knowledge seeking and moral reflection. SAGE Open, 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211052554

14.

Cohen-Charash

Mueller

J. S.

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

15.

Colquitt

J. A.

Zipay

K. P.

(2015). Justice, fairness, and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111457

16.

Cooper

D. R.

Schindler

P. S.

(2011). Business research methods. McGraw-Hill.

17.

Corcoran

Crusius

Mussweiler

(2011). Social comparison: Motives, standards, and mechanisms. In Chadee

(Ed.), Theories in social psychology (p. 119–139). Wiley Blackwell.

18.

Crusius

Lange

(2014). What catches the envious eye? Attentional biases within malicious and benign envy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.05.007

19.

Doty

D. H.

Glick

W. H.

(1998). Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 374–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002

20.

Duffy

M. K.

Lee

Adair

E. A.

(2021). Workplace envy. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1), 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055746

21.

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

22.

Fam

J. Y.

Yap

C. Y.

Murugan

S. B.

Lee

(2020). Benign and malicious envy scale: An assessment of its factor structure and psychometric properties. Psychological Thought, 13(1), 66–84. https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v13i1.389

23.

Festinger

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

24.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. Sage.

25.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Pearson.

26.

George

J. M.

Zhou

(2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 605–622.

27.

Gino

Ariely

(2012). The dark side of creativity: Original thinkers can be more dishonest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 445.

28.

Gino

Wiltermuth

S. S.

(2014). Evil genius? How dishonesty can lead to greater creativity. Psychological Science, 25(4), 973–981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614520714

29.

González-Navarro

Zurriaga-Llorens

Olateju

A. T.

Llinares-Insa

(2018). Envy and counter-productive work behavior: The moderation role of leadership in public and private organizations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071455

30.

Handel

(2019, August 17). Creativity and divergent thinking. The emotion machine. https://www.theemotionmachine.com/creativity-and-divergent-thinking/#:%7E:text=Divergent%20thinking%20is%20a%20creative,possible%20solutions%20as%20you%20can.&text=The%20more%20possibilities%20they%20come,the%20better%20their%20divergent%20thinking

31.

Hayes

A. F.

(2016). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis, second edition: A regression-based approach (methodology in the social sciences) (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

32.

Hernández-Jorge

C. M.

Rodríguez-Hernández

A. F.

Kostiv

Gil-Frías

P. B.

Domínguez Medina

Rivero

(2020). Creativity and emotions: A descriptive study of the relationships between creative attitudes and emotional competencies of primary school students. Sustainability, 12(11), 4773. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114773

33.

Hoffman

P. J.

Festinger

Lawrence

D. H.

(1954). Tendencies toward group comparability in competitive bargaining. Human Relations, 7(2), 141–159.

34.

Hofstede

G. J.

Minkov

(2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. McGraw-Hill.

35.

Zhou

Shao

Wei

Maguire

Wang

(2021). The effects of social comparison and depressive mood on adolescent social decision-making. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02928-y

36.

Kaplan

H. B.

(1975). Self-attitudes and deviant behavior. Goodyear.

37.

Kaufmann

Vosburg

S. K.

(1997). “Paradoxical” mood effects on creative problem-solving. Cognition and Emotion, 11(2), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999397379971

38.

Khan

M. H.

Noor

(2020). Does employee envy trigger the positive outcomes at workplace? A study of upward social comparison, envy and employee performance. Journal of Global Business Insights, 5(2), 169–188. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.5.2.1130

39.

Khessina

O. M.

Goncalo

J. A.

Krause

(2018). It’s time to sober up: The direct costs, side effects and long-term consequences of creativity and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 107–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.003

40.

Krejcie

R. V.

Morgan

D. W.

(1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610.

41.

Lange

Blatz

Crusius

(2018). Dispositional envy: A conceptual review. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences. Applications of personality and individual differences (pp. 424–440). Sage.

42.

Lange

Crusius

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

43.

Lange

Paulhus

D. L.

Crusius

(2018). Elucidating the dark side of envy: Distinctive links of benign and malicious envy with dark personalities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 601–614.

44.

Larson

R. B.

(2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305

45.

Lee

K. Y.

Duffy

M. K.

Scott

K. L.

Schippers

M. C.

(2017). The experience of being envied at work: How being envied shapes employee feelings and motivation. Personnel Psychology, 71(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12251

46.

Liao

T. F.

(2021). Income inequality, social comparison, and happiness in the United States. Socius. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120985648

47.

Lindholm

(2008). Culture and envy. In Smith

R. H.

(Ed.), Envy: Theory and research (pp. 227–244). Oxford University Press.

48.

Madore

K. P.

Jing

H. G.

Schacter

D. L.

(2016). Divergent creative thinking in young and older adults: Extending the effects of an episodic specificity induction. Memory & Cognition, 44(6), 974–988.

49.

Matta

F. K.

Van Dyne

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

50.

Medeiros

E. D. D.

Soares

A. K. S.

Nascimento

A. M. D.

Silva

J. B. S.

Gouveia

V. V.

(2016). An ungrateful disposition: Psychometric Properties of the dispositional envy scale in Brazil. Paidéia, 26(65), 351–358. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-4327266520160

51.

Memon

M. A.

Ting

Ramayah

Chuah

Cheah

J.-H.

(2017). A review of the methodological misconceptions and guidelines related to the application of structural equation modeling: A Malaysian scenario. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.

52.

Miceli

Castelfranchi

(2007). The envious mind. Cognition and Emotion, 21(3), 449–479.

53.

Morse

Gergen

K. J.

(1970). Social comparison, selfconsistency, and the concept of self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 148–156.

54.

Mumford

M. D.

Gustafson

S. B.

(1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.1.27

55.

Mussweiler

(2001). “Seek and Ye shall find”: Antecedents of assimilation and contrast in social comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 499–509.

56.

Parrott

W. G.

Smith

R. H.

(1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906.

57.

Paulus

(2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology, 49(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00013

58.

Piest

Schreck

(2021). Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature. Management Review Quarterly, 21(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00197-3

59.

Porter

M. E.

(1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

60.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

61.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

62.

Rahimi

S., C.

Hall

Wang

Maymon

(2017). Upward, downward, and horizontal social comparisons: Effects on adjustment, emotions, and persistence in teachers. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.31532/interdiscipeducpsychol.1.1.010

63.

Rawls

(1999). A theory of justice. Belknap

64.

Reio

T. G.

(2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9(4), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331

65.

Ruggieri

Ingoglia

Bonfanti

R. C.

Lo Coco

(2021). The role of online social comparison as a protective factor for psychological well-being: A longitudinal study during the COVID-19 quarantine. Personality and individual differences, 171, 110486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110486

66.

Runco

M. A.

Plucker

J. A.

Lim

(2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1334_16

67.

Sayğan-Yağiz

F. N.

(2020). The relationship between dispositional envy and knowledge sharing. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 8(1), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v8i1.1414

68.

Schaubroeck

Lam

S. S. K.

(2004). Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees’ invidious reactions to promotees. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(1), 33–47.

69.

Silver

Sabini

(1978). The perception of envy. Social Psychology, 41(2), 105. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033570

70.

Silvia

P. J.

Kaufman

J. C.

Reiter-Palmon

Wigert

(2011). Cantankerous creativity: Honesty–Humility, Agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 687–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.011

71.

Smith

R. H.

Combs

D. J. Y.

Thielke

S. M.

(2008). Envy and the challenges to good health. In Smith

R. H.

(Ed.), Series in affective science. Envy: Theory and research (pp. 290–314). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327953.003.0016

72.

Smith

R. H.

Parrott

W. G.

Diener

E. F.

Hoyle

R. H.

Kim

S. H.

(1999). Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007–1020.

73.

Spector

P. E.

Fox

Penney

L. M.

Bruursema

Goh

Kessler

(2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counter-productive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005

74.

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/amr.2009.0484

75.

Tan

C. Y.

Chuah

C. Q.

Lee

S. T.

Tan

C. S.

(2021). Being creative makes you happier: The positive effect of creativity on subjective well-being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7244. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147244

76.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

77.

Tehseen

Ramayah

Sajilan

(2017). Testing and controlling for common method variance: A review of available methods. Journal of Management Sciences, 4(2), 142–168. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.1704202

78.

Van de Ven

(2016). Envy and its consequences: Why it is useful to distinguish between benign and malicious envy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 106, 337–349.

79.

Van de Ven

Zeelenberg

(2020). Envy and social comparison. In Suls

Collins

R. L.

Wheeler

(Eds.), Social comparison, judgment, and behavior (pp. 226–250). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190629113.003.0009

80.

Van de Ven

Zeelenberg

Pieters

(2011). Why envy outperforms admiration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400421

81.

Vecchio

R. P.

(2000). Negative emotion in the workplace: Employee jealousy and envy. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(3), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009592430712

82.

Vecchio

R. P.

(1995). It’s not easy being green: Jealousy and envy in the workplace. Research in Personnel & Human Resources Management, 13, 201–244.

83.

Vosburg

S. K.

(1998). The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent-thinking performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_6

84.

West

M. A.

Anderson

N. R.

(1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 680.

85.

White

J. B.

Langer

E. J.

Yariv

Welch

J. C.

(2006). Frequent social comparisons and destructive emotions and behaviors: The dark side of social comparisons. Journal of Adult Development, 13(1), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-006-9005-0

86.

Whitehead

J. C.

Groothuis

P. A.

Blomquist

G. C.

(1993). Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation. Economics Letters, 41(2), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(93)90200-v

87.

Wickelgren

(2012). Unveiling the real evil genius. Scientific American Mind, 23(5), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamericanmind1112-26

88.

Xiang

Zhao

Wang

Kong

(2017). Examining brain structures associated with dispositional envy and the mediation role of emotional intelligence. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 39947. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39947

89.

Yong

Sauer

S. J.

Mannix

E. A.

(2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414530789

90.

Hao

Shi

(2018). Dispositional envy inhibits prosocial behavior in adolescents with high self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.022

91.

Zuo

Wang

Qiao

Ding

Wen

(2021). Impact of divergent thinking training on teenagers’ emotion and self-efficacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 600533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.600533