Coworkers’ Perceptions of,and Communication With,Workplace Romance Participants: Proposing and Testing a Model

Abstract

This study’s purpose was to propose and test a model of workplace romance’s influence on coworkers’ perceptions of, and communication with, workplace romance participants. In testing hypotheses derived from our model, we examined workplace romance’s relational implications from the perspectives of workplace romance participants and third-party coworkers. Results reveal that coworker perceptions of, and behaviors toward, workplace romance participants were more deleterious than the workplace romance participants believed them to be, especially in the case of hierarchical workplace romances. In addition, attributions of workplace romance job motives led to reports of diminished coworker trust in workplace romance participants, which predicted less honest and accurate coworker communication with workplace romance participants. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings for communication in coworker relationships and antisocial organizational behavior and communication are discussed.

Keywords

workplace romance coworker relationships organizational justice trust self-disclosure

Workplace romances (WRs) continue to draw the attention of scholars, practitioners, and the American public. As we spend increasingly more time at work (U.S. Department of Labor/U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017), younger generations seek to blend the work and life domains (Adkins, 2016; Chory & Gillen Hoke, 2019), and the use of communication technologies to conduct business and maintain coworker relationships challenge WR policy development (e.g., Cowan & Horan, 2021; Mainiero & Jones, 2013a, 2013b), much remains to be learned about this unique workplace relationship. Perhaps the most influential factor in the sustained interest in WRs is the recent media coverage of sexual harassment allegations made against prominent men in the entertainment and business worlds and the ensuing #MeToo movement and backlash (see Bennhold, 2019). Assumptions about appropriate organizational behavior and communication are once again being questioned, and organizational norms and policies governing employee interactions are being reexamined and renegotiated. It is in this environment that we propose and test a model of coworkers’ perceptions of and communication with WR participants.

Workplace Romance

A WR is “a non-platonic relationship between two members of an organization in which sexual attraction is present, affection is communicated, and both members recognize the relationship to be something more than just professional and platonic” (Horan & Chory, 2011, p. 565). WRs can occur between same-sex or opposite-sex individuals; they may include couples who are dating, married, engaged to be married, cohabitating, and/or involved in sexual relationships, including extramarital affairs, “random hook-ups,” and “friends with benefits” (Chory, 2019). WRs develop, in part, due to close and repeated contact, opportunity, time spent together, work group characteristics, task interdependence, similarity, and organizational culture (Cowan & Horan, 2014b; Pierce et al., 1996; Quinn, 1977; Salvaggio et al., 2011; Sias, 2009). Over half (58%) of working professionals in the United States have participated in a WR (Vault Careers, 2018).

The effects of WR may be positive (e.g., increased motivation, job involvement, performance, and satisfaction; Dillard, 1987; Pierce, 1998), neutral (Cole, 2009), or negative. From a human resources perspective, concerns about sexual harassment, particularly the impact of dissolved WRs on sexual harassment claims, and the legality of WR polices abound (Pierce & Aguinis, 2009; Pierce et al., 2000; Pierce et al., 2004; Society for Human Resource Management, 2013). From an organizational behavior and communication perspective, however, concerns about coworker relationships, career advancement, team performance, and information accuracy are at the fore (Chan-Serafin et al., 2016; Chory, 2019; Horan & Chory, 2009, 2011, 2013; Jones, 1999; Malachowski, Chory, & Claus, 2012).

Despite a growing body of research examining the effects of WR characteristics on coworker communication, this research has not yet been integrated into a testable model. Furthermore, most WR research has focused on third-party coworkers’ responses to WR, usually through hypothetical scenarios (e.g., Chan-Serafin et al., 2016; Horan & Chory, 2009, 2011; Jones, 1999; Malachowski et al., 2012; Pierce et al., 2000; Pierce et al., 2004) or interviews of small samples (e.g., Biggs et al., 2012; Cowan & Horan, 2014a, 2021; Horan, Cowan, & Carberry, 2019). Less research has investigated WR participants’ beliefs, in particular, their beliefs about how their coworkers respond to their WRs (for exceptions, see Dillard’s [1987] study on perceptions of WR gossip and Cowan and Horan’s [2021] study on information communication technology use and WR privacy).

In the present study, we address these limitations of the extant WR literature by proposing and testing a model of the direct and indirect effects of WR on reports of coworkers’ beliefs and behaviors toward WR participants. Specifically, we examine two factors, respondent role and the WR status dynamic, that predict reports of coworkers’ WR motives and perceptions of unfair advantages enjoyed by WR participants. We examine how these WR motive attributions and equity judgments predict reports of coworker trust in and communication with WR participants, and, how, in turn, trust predicts communication with WR participants. We use data based on the real-life experiences of WR observers and WR participants to test our model.

WR Model Foundations: Theories and Variables of Interest

Attempts to explain WR’s effects on coworker perceptions and communication tend to stem from two theoretical traditions: attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1973) and equity theory (Adams, 1965). Attribution theory addresses how individuals explain the causes of other people’s behaviors and how those attributed causes guide individuals’ behaviors and decisions concerning other people and their behaviors (Kelley, 1973). Early WR research in this tradition focused on the three motives employees attributed to their coworkers in WRs: job (e.g., for job advancement, power, and security), ego (e.g., for excitement and adventure), and love (e.g., for affection and companionship; Quinn, 1977). More recently, WR participants and/or observers identified elements of interpersonal attraction and “hooking up” as WR motives (Cowan & Horan, 2014b). Research indicates that attributing coworkers’ WRs to job and ego motives versus the love motive is associated with more negative perceptions of and behaviors toward said coworkers (Chory, 2019; Gillen Hoke & Chory, 2015a; Malachowski et al., 2012; McLaren, 1994).

Equity theory purports that individuals evaluate their relationships by comparing their outcomes (benefits) with their inputs (costs) and then comparing that ratio with the corresponding ratio of some referent (e.g., a coworker; Adams, 1965). If the ratios are inequitable, individuals will be motivated to restore relational balance, for example, by increasing the costs to the referent. WR research in the equity theory vein examines third parties’ perceptions of inequity or unfairness that result from WRs and third parties’ subsequent attempts to restore balance to the relationship (Horan & Chory, 2009, 2011, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). For example, Mainiero (1986) asserted that third-party coworkers may perceive employees in WRs as able to exchange personal/sexual resources with their WR partner that other employees are not. As a result, romantically involved coworkers may [unfairly] benefit in ways other employees cannot. More recently, Chory and Gillen Hoke (2019) asserted that third-party perceptions of unfairness may also be triggered by the tendency for people in love to idealize their romantic partners (Reis & Aron, 2008). Such idealization would likely lead WR participants to perceive their WR partners as more competent than coworkers would perceive them to be, leading WR participants to [unwarrantedly] favor their WR partners over other employees (Chory & Gillen Hoke, 2019). Research shows that coworker perceptions of WR participants experiencing unfair advantages due to the WR are associated with more negative perceptions of and behaviors toward WR participants (Chory, 2019; Malachowski et al., 2012).

Two of the most frequently investigated communication-related outcomes of WR are coworker trust in WR participants and the honesty and accuracy of the self-disclosure coworkers communicate to them (see e.g., Horan & Chory, 2009, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). The model we propose in the present study focuses on these outcomes, as well.

Trust refers to a “process of holding certain relevant, favorable perceptions of another person which engender certain types of dependent behaviors in a risky situation where the expected outcomes that are dependent upon the other person(s) are not known with certainty” (Wheeless & Grotz, 1978, p. 251). Trust is instrumental in workplace relationship development (Dunleavy, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010) and is associated with less antisocial organizational behavior and communication (Chory & Hubbell, 2008). Research indicates that third-party coworkers’ trust in work peers is negatively affected by WR participation (Malachowski et al., 2012). In addition, coworker trust is predictive of coworker self-disclosure.

Self-disclosure is the process of intentionally communicating private information about the self to another person who would not have known the information otherwise (Wheeless & Grotz, 1978; Worthy et al., 1969). We focus on the honesty-accuracy of self-disclosure, that is, self-disclosure’s validity and sincerity (Wheeless & Grotz, 1976). Mutual self-disclosure of personal information between organizational members tends to draw the individuals closer together as they communicate disclosures involving greater risk and increased vulnerability (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018; Sias, 2009). These more intimate, riskier disclosures communicate that the employees like and trust each other (Worthy et al., 1969).

WR investigations tend to consider self-disclosure in one of two ways. First, individuals manage their workplace relationships, in part, through strategic self-disclosures based on a risk-benefit analysis (Gibson, 2018; Omarzu, 2000; Petronio, 2002, 2013; Phillips et al., 2009; Smith & Brunner, 2017). One risk would be the recipient sharing the disclosure with unauthorized individuals. In terms of the proposed WR model, third-party coworkers are expected to gauge the risk involved in disclosing to WR participants, particularly the potential for WR participants to reveal the third parties’ private information to the WR participants’ WR partners. Third-party coworkers are less likely to trust WR participants who have revealed disclosures in the past or whom they believe will do so in the future, and as a result, coworkers are expected to alter, withhold, or otherwise manage subsequent self-disclosures to WR participants (Omarzu, 2000; Petronio, 2013; Smith & Brunner, 2017). In short, coworkers protect themselves from the potentially damaging effects of WR partners’ “pillow talk” by controlling their self-disclosure (Horan & Chory, 2009; Malachowski et al., 2012). These studies are usually framed by Petronio’s (2002) communication privacy management theory or Omarzu’s (2000) disclosure decision model.

A second way self-disclosure is viewed is as a means for third parties to “even the playing field” created by WR participants being perceived as unfairly benefiting from the WR. In this sense, third parties’ less honest and accurate self-disclosures are intended to obstruct WR participants’ work or to hurt them (Horan & Chory, 2009, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). Such studies tend to be guided by Adams’s (1965) equity theory.

In the sections that follow, we introduce our model of third-party coworkers’ perceptions of and communication with WR participants. We describe the aspects of WRs that drive WR attributions and fairness judgments, how these perceptions influence trust in WR participants, and how both perceptions and trust predict the honesty and accuracy with which third-party coworkers self-disclose to WR participants.

WR Model Components: Predictors, Moderators, and Mediators

Our model of WR’s impact on perceptions and communication is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized model of third-party coworkers’ perceptions of and communication with workplace romance (WR) participants.

Respondent Role and WR Status Dynamic as Predictors

The first factor shown to predict WR beliefs and behaviors is the respondent’s role as a WR participant (i.e., currently or previously involved in a WR) or third-party WR observer (i.e., currently observing or has observed a WR in the past, but has not participated in one). In general, WR participants tend to underestimate their WRs’ negative impact on coworkers (Vault Careers, 2019) and tend to have more positive WR attitudes than do people without WR experience (Chory, 2019). Indeed, third parties are said to hold neutral (Cole, 2009; Dillard, 1987) to unfavorable (Brown & Allgeier, 1996) WR attitudes. WR participants are more likely than observers to characterize gossip about the WR as positive (Dillard, 1987) and they overestimate the positive nature of the talk (McLaren, 1994). In addition, employees with WR experience reported more positive effects on team members’ morale, motivation, and performance than did those without WR experience (Jones, 1999).

WR participants may underestimate the negative effects of their WRs for a number of reasons. First, the fundamental attribution error may be operating in the WR sense-making process, as WR participants may attribute their WR participation to situational factors such as ease of opportunity or romantic fate, whereas WR observers may attribute WR participants’ behaviors to dispositional factors, such as selfishness or sexual desire (Cowan & Horan, 2014b; Heider, 1958). Second, WR participants likely have more accurate information about their WR motives than their coworkers do. As a result, they may rightly attribute their WRs to the desire for true love versus job advancement, whereas WR observers may mistakenly attribute their coworkers’ WRs to job- and ego-related motives (McLaren, 1994). Third, coworkers do not benefit from WRs as the partners do, so they tend to focus on WR’s negative work-related implications, whereas WR partners focus on the WR’s positive impacts (Cole, 2009). Finally, WR participants may overestimate their ability to successfully blend the work and life domains (Chory & Gillen Hoke, 2019; Horan et al., 2019) and to manage the emotions associated with love that tend to spill over into the workplace (Pierce & Aguinis, 2003), explaining differences in reactions.

The bulk of WR research suggests that third parties are inclined to believe employees are in WRs for short-term sexual experiences or job advantages. For instance, coworkers, but not WR participants, identified “hooking up” as a WR motive (Cowan & Horan, 2014b). Jones (1999) observed that third parties most frequently attributed WRs to ego motives, followed by job motives. Similarly, WR participants versus observers were less likely to attribute job motives to women in WRs. WR observers also reported witnessing utilitarian WRs (ego-motivated man, job-motivated woman; Quinn, 1977), whereas WR participants did not (McLaren, 1994).

In accordance with coworkers’ attributions of job motives to WR partners, third parties perceived coworkers involved in WRs as enjoying more unfair work advantages than coworkers not in WRs (Malachowski et al., 2012). Along the same lines, observers attributed (to a small degree) a WR participant’s promotion to the influence of his/her WR partner—regardless of the partner’s status (McLaren, 1994). In contrast, Jones (1999) observed that employees who had been in WRs themselves perceived supervisors in WRs more positively (e.g., fairer and more objective).

Respondent role is also related to trust and self-disclosure. Employees with prior WR experience reported more trust in and respect for coworkers in WRs than did those without WR experience (Jones, 1999). Third-party coworkers also communicated more mindfully around cross-sex workplace friends, for example, by not sharing personal information (Gillen Hoke & Chory, 2015b), and they self-disclosed less honestly and accurately to coworkers in WRs than they did to those in strictly professional relationships (Gillen Hoke & Chory, 2015a). Hypothesis one tests the first stage of our model.

Hypothesis 1: WR participants will report coworkers (a) attribute weaker job and ego motives, but stronger love motives, to WRs; (b) believe WR participants receive fewer unfair advantages due to the WR; (c) trust WR participants more; and (d) self-disclose more honestly and accurately to WR participants than WR observers will report.

The WR status dynamic is another important factor affecting WR perceptions (Chory, 2019). Employees in hierarchical WRs (WRs between individuals of different organizational status; Chan-Serafin et al., 2016) versus those in peer-peer WRs tend to be perceived as motivated by the job to a greater extent and by sincere love to a lesser extent (Biggs et al., 2012; Malachowski et al., 2012; Pierce et al., 1996). Similarly, third parties were less likely to attribute a WR participant’s promotion to his/her ability, effort, or personality and were more likely to attribute it to the WR partner’s influence when the partner was of high versus low status (McLaren, 1994). Consistent with these findings, employees perceive coworkers in WRs with superiors (vs. peers) as less credible (Horan & Chory, 2011, 2013) and as receiving more unfair advantages due to the WR (Biggs et al., 2012; Malachowski et al., 2012; Pierce et al., 1996).

The WR status dynamic also affects coworkers’ trust and communication. Employees trust coworkers in WRs with superiors (vs. peers) less and feel less solidarity with them (Horan & Chory, 2009, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). Coworkers also engage in more deception and less honest and accurate self-disclosure with peers in WR with superiors than they do with peers in WR with other peers (Horan & Chory, 2009, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). The second hypothesis tests this aspect of our model.

Hypothesis 2: Respondents reporting on hierarchical WRs will report coworkers (a) attribute stronger job and ego motives, but weaker love motives, to WRs; (b) believe WR participants receive more unfair advantages due to the WR; (c) trust WR participants less; and (d) self-disclose less honestly and accurately to WR participants than respondents reporting on peer-peer WRs will report.

WR Status Dynamic as a Moderator

Given the logic underlying Hypotheses 1 and 2, our model predicts that the WR status dynamic moderates the impact respondent role has on perceptions of and communication toward WR participants. For example, WR observers may be especially likely to attribute job motives to hierarchical WR participants and perceive them as unfairly benefiting from the WR to the greatest extent. Hypothesis 3 tests this portion of the model.

Hypothesis 3: Respondent role and the WR status dynamic will interact to affect respondents’ reports of coworkers’ (a) attributions of WR motives, (b) beliefs that WR participants receive unfair advantages due to the WR, (c) trust in WR participants, and (d) honesty and accuracy of self-disclosure to WR participants.

Attributions of Motives, Unfairness, and Trust as Predictors

As respondent role and WR status dynamic are expected to predict attributions of WR motives and unfair advantages, WR motives and unfair advantages are expected to predict trust in WR participants and the honesty/accuracy of the self-disclosure communicated to them. Supporting this model prediction, Malachowski and colleagues (2012) found that WR observers who attributed job motives to WR participants tended to trust WR participants less and were more likely to engage in information manipulation with them. In contrast, observers who believed WR participants were motivated by love tended to trust WR participants more, were more likely to self-disclose honestly and accurately to them, and were less likely to deceive them. Gillen Hoke and Chory’s (2015a) study of coworkers in WRs, friendships, and professional relationships yielded similar results. Employees attributing coworkers’ relationships to ego motives predicted third parties engaging in less honest and accurate self-disclosure to the partners, whereas attributions of sincere (love) motives predicted more honest and accurate self-disclosure.

Consistent with equity theory, WR observers’ perceptions of WR participants receiving unfair advantages predicted observers trusting WR participants less and being more likely to manipulate information with them to restore equity (Malachowski et al., 2012). In addition, coworkers’ perceptions that WRs, friendships, and professional relationships yielded unfair advantages to partners was associated with coworkers communicating less honest and accurate self-disclosures to the partners (Gillen Hoke & Chory, 2015a). Finally, third-party coworkers’ trust in WR participants led coworkers to feel less solidarity with WR participants and to communicate less honestly with them (Horan & Chory, 2009, 2013; Malachowski et al., 2012). Hypotheses four and five test the second stage of our model:

Hypothesis 4: Respondents’ reports of coworkers’ WR-related beliefs will predict reports of coworkers’ (a) trust and (b) self-disclosure honesty and accuracy.

Hypothesis 5: Respondents’ reports of coworkers’ trust will positively predict reports of coworkers’ self-disclosure honesty and accuracy.

Attributions of Motives, Unfairness, and Trust as Mediators

Aside from the direct effects posited by the model, research suggests that respondent role and the WR status dynamic affect communication with WR participants through their impact on attributions of motives, unfairness, and trust. Consistent with equity and attribution theories, coworkers’ attributions of WR partners’ motives and perceptions of unfairness mediated the relationships between the WR status dynamic and coworkers’ likelihood of manipulating information with them (Malachowski et al., 2012). Furthermore, in line with communication privacy management theory and the disclosure decision model, WR observers’ trust in WR participants mediated the relationships between the WR status dynamic and WR observers’ solidarity, deception, and the honesty and accuracy of self-disclosure to WR participants (Horan & Chory, 2009; Malachowski et al., 2012). The mediated relationships set forth in our model are tested by Hypotheses 6 and 7.

Hypothesis 6: Respondents’ reports of coworkers’ WR-related beliefs will mediate the relationship between WR and respondent characteristics (respondent role, WR status dynamic, respondent role × WR status dynamic) and reports of coworkers’ trust and self-disclosure honesty and accuracy.

Hypothesis 7: Respondents’ reports of coworkers’ trust will mediate the relationship between WR and respondent characteristics (respondent role, WR status dynamic, respondent role × WR status dynamic), along with reports of coworkers’ WR-related beliefs, and reports of coworkers’ self-disclosure honesty and accuracy.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Two samples of employed individuals older than 18 years were recruited for participation. One sample consisted of employees who had been (or were currently) involved in a heterosexual WR and the other consisted of employees who had never participated in a WR, but who had observed (or were currently observing) a heterosexual WR.¹ After receiving institutional review board approval, qualified individuals were recruited for participation by undergraduate students at a large Mid-Atlantic U.S. university and through an online announcement made at the same university. The questionnaire was hosted via a secure online survey website. Participants recruited by students emailed one of the investigators who provided them with an Internet link to the questionnaire. The online announcement included a direct link to the questionnaire.

The total sample consisted of 160 employees (WR participants: n = 76, 47.5%; WR observers: n = 84, 52.5%), most of whom were women (n = 120, 75%). Most reported their race/ethnicity as Caucasian/White (n = 146, 91.3%). Ages ranged from 18 to 59 years (M = 24 years; SD = 7.22). Respondents reported having worked at the organization where the WR occurred for 3 months to 24 years (M = 2.66 years; SD = 3.16). Participants (n = 130, 81%) who still worked at the organization at which the WR occurred reported working a mean of 28.82 hours per week (SD = 11.93). Approximately 11.9% of respondents reported their organization had a policy prohibiting WRs, 57.9% did not have such a policy, and 30.2% did not know if their organization had a policy. Among those whose organization had a WR policy, 74% believed the policy was fair. Respondents reported on 45 (28.1%) hierarchical WRs and 115 (71.9%) peer-peer WRs.

Instrumentation

Horan and Chory’s (2011, p. 565) definition of WR appeared at the beginning of the questionnaire: “A workplace romance is a nonplatonic relationship between two members of an organization in which sexual attraction is present, affection is communicated, and both members recognize the relationship to be something more than just professional and platonic.” WR observers were then instructed to complete the items “about a past or present workplace romance that occurred in your organization,” and to report on their communication with the coworker in the WR with whom they have/had the most work-related contact (their own communication with a WR participant). WR participants were instructed to complete the items “about a past or present workplace romance that you were involved in.” WR participants responded to items concerning how the coworker with whom they had the most work-related contact communicated with them (their perceptions of a coworker’s communication with them).² The samples were recruited independently and did not include paired data (similar to Dillard’s [1987] method). Additional data, not reported here, were also collected for use in a separate study.³

Motives for engaging in a WR were assessed with Malachowski and colleagues’ (2012) 13 item-measure, which was based on Quinn (1977). It assessed job (e.g., “for job enhancement,” six items), ego (e.g., “for adventure,” four items), and love (e.g., “to find a spouse,” three items) motives. WR participants reported their beliefs about the attributions the coworker with whom they had the most work-related contact made about their WR motives. “My coworker feels/felt I am/was involved in the workplace romance . . . ” preceded the items. WR observers reported their perceptions of the WR motives of the WR participant with whom they had the most work-related contact. “I feel/felt my coworker is/was involved in the workplace romance . . . ” preceded the items. Respondents indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Job motive scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.83 (M = 2.01, SD = 1.00, α = .87), ego motive scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 3.74, SD = 1.48, α = .82), and love motive scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 4.51, SD = 1.37, α = .65).

Beliefs the WR participant experienced unfair advantages due to the WR were assessed with Malachowski et al.’s (2012) seven-item measure. For WR participants, “Due to my workplace romance, my coworker thinks/thought I . . . ” preceded the items. The WR observers’ items were preceded by, “Due to their workplace romance, I think/thought my coworker . . . ” Items included “receives special treatment at work” and “is likely to be promoted over other organizational members.” Respondents indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 2.77, SD = 1.69, α = .96).

Trust in WR participants was measured with McCroskey’s (2006) Generalized Belief Measure. WR participants responded to the item, “This coworker trusts me as a colleague.” WR observers responded to the item, “I trust the coworker in the workplace romance . . . ” Responses were solicited on five, 7-point semantic differential scales (e.g., yes/no, agree/disagree). Scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 5.52, SD = 1.79, α = .96).

Self-disclosure honesty and accuracy was assessed with five items from Wheeless’s (1978) measure that assess the intimacy and amount of information disclosed. WR participants reported their perceptions of the honesty and accuracy of self-disclosure from the coworker with whom they had the most work-related contact. WR observers reported their self-disclosure with the coworker in the WR with whom they had the most work-related contact. Respondents indicated their agreement on a 7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 5.18, SD = 1.19, α = .86).

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Because women tend to hold less favorable attitudes toward WR than men do (e.g., Jones, 1999), differences by respondent sex were examined prior to testing the hypotheses. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance revealed no effect for respondent sex, Wilks’s Λ = .96, F(6, 153) = 1.10, p > .05, partial η² = .04.⁴

Pearson correlations among the dependent variables appear in Table 1.

Table 1.

Pearson Correlations Among Variables.

	Job motive	Ego motive	Love motive	Unfair advantages	Trust
Job motive	—
Ego motive	.25 ***	—
Love motive	−.16 *	.08	—
Unfair advantages	.59 ***	.26 ***	−.11	—
Trust	−.41 ***	−.24 **	.12	−.30 ***	—
Self-disclosure	−.27 ***	−.06	.04	−.16 *	.36 ***

Note. N = 160.

p ≤ .05. **p < .002. ***p < .001.

Hypotheses 1 to 3: Respondent Role and WR Status Dynamic as Predictors and Moderator

To test Hypotheses 1 through 3, role, WR status dynamic, and role × status dynamic were entered as predictors in the first step of the regression model. This block predicted job motive attributions, unfair advantages, and trust, but did not predict ego motives, love motives, or self-disclosure. Results for Hypotheses 1 through 3 appear in Table 2.

Table 2.

Hypotheses 1 Through 3 Results: Predictors of Coworkers’ WR Beliefs and Behaviors.

	Job motive β	Ego motive β	Love motive β	Unfair advantages β	Trust β	Self-disclosure β
Step 1: WR and respondent characteristics
Respondent role	.38**	.13	.13	.30**	−.45**	−.17*
WR status dynamic	−.07	−.05	−.09	−.27**	.00	−.02
Role × Status dynamic	−.15*	−.08	.06	−.27**	−.06	−.10
F(3, 156)	10.28**	1.28	1.43	13.71**	13.29**	2.28^†
R	.41**	.16	.16	.46**	.45**	.21^†
R ²	.17**	.02	.02	.21**	.20**	.04^†

Note. WR = workplace romance. Nominal variables were coded as follows: Respondent role (1 = WR participant, 2 = Coworker), WR status dynamic (1 = hierarchical, 2 = peer-peer).

†

p = .081. *p < .05. **p < .001.

For Hypothesis 1, results indicated that WR participants reported less negative coworker beliefs about (weaker job motives and receiving fewer unfair advantages) and less destructive coworker behaviors toward (more trust and more honest/accurate self-disclosure) WR participants than WR observers reported. Results for Hypothesis 2 indicated that compared with respondents reporting on same-status WRs, those reporting on hierarchical WRs reported coworkers believe WR participants receive more unfair advantages due to the WR. Results for Hypothesis 3 revealed that respondent role and status dynamic interacted to predict coworkers’ attributions of job motives to WR participants and beliefs that WR participants received unfair advantages. Follow-up univariate tests revealed that hierarchical WR observers reported stronger perceptions of WR participants receiving unfair advantages than did all other respondent role-status dynamic combinations. Univariate tests for job motives indicated results consistent with the main effect observed for respondent role. In sum, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were partially supported.

Hypotheses 4 and 5: Attributions of Motives, Unfairness, and Trust as Predictors

To test Hypothesis 4, WR motives and unfair advantages were entered as a block into the model containing respondent role, WR status dynamic, and the role × status dynamic interaction. When all variables were in the model, attributions of ego and job motives negatively predicted trust (Hypothesis 4a) and attributions of job motives negatively predicted self-disclosure (Hypothesis 4b). Unfair advantages was not related to trust or self-disclosure. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Results for Hypothesis 4 appear in Table 3.

Table 3.

Hypothesis 4 Results: Predictors of Coworkers’ Trust and Self-Disclosure.

	Trust β	Self-disclosure β
Step 1: WR and respondent characteristics
Respondent role	−.36**	−.09*
WR status dynamic	−.02	−.03
Role × Status dynamic	.00	.07
Step 2: Coworker beliefs
Job motive	−.20*	−.25*
Ego motive	−.15*	.02
Love motive	.13^†	.00
Unfair advantages	−.04	.02
ΔF(4, 152)	5.61**	1.90
ΔR²	.10**	.05
F(7, 152)	9.57**	2.09*
R	.55**	.30*
R ²	.31**	.09*

Note. WR = workplace romance. Nominal variables were coded as follows: Respondent role (1 = WR participant, 2 = coworker), WR status dynamic (1 = hierarchical, 2 = peer-peer).

†

p = .06. *p < .05. **p < .001.

To test Hypothesis 5, coworkers’ trust was added to the model testing Hypothesis 4. When all variables were in the model, trust predicted self-disclosure at a statistically significant level. Hypothesis 5 was supported. Results for Hypothesis 5 appear in Table 4.

Table 4.

Hypothesis 5 Results: Predictors of Coworkers’ Self-Disclosure.

	Self-disclosure β
Step 1: WR and respondent characteristics
Respondent role	.03
WR status dynamic	−.02
Role × Status dynamic	.07
Step 2: Coworker beliefs
Job motive	−.18^†
Ego motive	.07
Love motive	−.04
Unfair advantages	.03
Step 3: Coworker trust
Trust	.32**
ΔF(1, 151)	13.00**
ΔR²	.07**
F(8, 151)	3.59**
R	.40**
R ²	.16**

Note. WR = workplace romance. Nominal variables were coded as follows: Respondent role (1 = WR participant, 2 = coworker), workplace romances status dynamic (1 = hierarchical, 2 = peer-peer).

†

p = .07. **p < .001.

Hypotheses 6 and 7: Attributions of Motives, Unfairness, and Trust as Mediators

Criteria established by Baron and Kenny (1986) and Judd and Kenny (1981) were used to test Hypotheses 6 and 7.⁵ Results for Hypothesis 6 indicate that the addition of coworker beliefs to the model containing WR and respondent characteristics accounted for an additional 10% of the variance in trust, ΔR² = .10, ΔF(4, 152) = 5.61, p < .001; R² = .31, F(7, 152) = 9.57, p < .001. The standardized regression coefficient for respondent role decreased (from β = −.45 to β = −.36), but remained statistically significant, when coworker beliefs were included in the model, suggesting that coworker beliefs partially mediated the relationship between respondent role and trust.

Results for Hypothesis 6 also indicate that the addition of coworker beliefs to the model containing WR and respondent characteristics did not increase the model’s ability to predict self-disclosure, ΔR² = .05, ΔF(4, 152) = 1.90, p > .05. However, the standardized regression coefficient for respondent role went from being a statistically significant predictor of self-disclosure to a nonpredictor (from β = −.17, p < .05 to β = −.09, p > .05), suggesting coworker beliefs did mediate the relationship between respondent role and self-disclosure. When the first two blocks of predictors were in the models, only job motives, β = −.25, p < .05; predicted self-disclosure, R² = .09, F(7, 152) = 2.09, p < .05. Hypothesis 6 was partially supported.

Results for Hypothesis 7 indicate that the addition of trust to the regression model containing WR and respondent characteristics and coworker beliefs accounted for 7% additional variance in self-disclosure, suggesting trust mediated the relationship between WR and respondent characteristics and coworker beliefs (as a block) and self-disclosure, ΔR² = .07, ΔF(1, 151) = 13.00, p < .001. The standardized regression coefficient for job motive attributions went from being a statistically significant predictor to a nonpredictor (from β = −.25, p < .05 to β = −.18, p > .05) when trust was entered, suggesting trust fully mediated the relationship between job motive attributions and self-disclosure. When all three blocks of predictors were in the model, only trust predicted self-disclosure, β = .32, R² = .16, F(8, 151) = 3.59, p < .001. Hypothesis 7 was supported.

Discussion

Prior research suggests that organizational members’ attributions of motives, beliefs about unfair advantages, trust, and self-disclosure honesty and accuracy toward and concerning coworkers are negatively affected by these coworkers’ participation in WR (Chory, 2019; Cowan & Horan, 2014b; Horan & Chory, 2009, 2011, 2013; Jones, 1999; Mainiero, 1986; Malachowski et al., 2012). Despite this body of work, no attempt had been made to integrate these empirical findings into a testable model. To address this paucity of research, we proposed a model of coworker perceptions of and communication toward WR participants and tested hypotheses derived from this model using data based on the lived experiences of both WR observers and WR participants.

Our research revealed that WR observers’ perceptions of and behaviors toward WR participants were more deleterious than WR participants believed them to be and that such perceptions led employees to report coworkers trust WR participants less, which led to reports that coworkers communicate less honestly and accurately to WR participants. Compared with WR observers, WR participants reported coworkers attribute weaker job motives to WR participants and perceive they receive fewer unfair advantages due to the WR. WR participants also believed coworkers trust WR participants more and self-disclose more honestly and accurately to them than WR observers reported. Hierarchical WRs were associated with employees believing the WR partners receive more unfair advantages from the WR, with particularly strong effects occurring among observers of hierarchical WRs. Finally, the effects of respondent role on trust were at least partially mediated by attributions of WR motives, especially attributing the WR to a job motive. Effects of the WR on self-disclosure were fully mediated by coworker trust in WR participants. In short, WR participants and WR observers (especially observers of hierarchical WRs) differed in their perceptions of how coworkers perceive WR partners, which predicted differences in how coworkers communicate with them.

The implications of the model-derived and supported relationships between WR and coworkers’ communication with WR participants are important to consider due to their potential to affect organizations in meaningful ways and for their insight into why employees engage in WRs, despite the risks. We discuss these implications in the following sections.

Implications of the WR Model

When WR participants underestimate the negative effects their WRs have on their coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors, they make themselves and their organizations vulnerable to harm. This harm is likely to manifest primarily as antisocial organizational behavior and communication, damaged coworker relationships, and threats to communication integrity.

First, WR participants who underestimate their coworkers’ perceptions of unfairness due to the WR may be unprepared for the antisocial behavior they will likely encounter. Organizational justice research indicates that perceptions of unfairness predicted employees’ hostility, indirect aggression, obstructionism, deception, and withdrawal (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Colquitt et al., 2001). Because coworkers’ attributions of WRs to job motives are related to unfairness perceptions (as evidenced here and in Malachowski et al., 2012), WR participants who underestimate their coworkers’ job motive attributions and overestimate their love motive attributions are also likely to experience antisocial coworker reactions. The potential for WRs to provoke these behaviors should be of concern to WR participants, management, and human resources professionals, as these behaviors negatively affect employee productivity and health and lead to absenteeism, turnover, financial loss, and lawsuits (Horan & Chory, 2009; McGovern, 1999).

Second, WR participants who underestimate their WR’s impact on coworkers’ trust may fail to realize their WR may be preventing them access to information and social support. Trust is key to the development of coworker relationships (Sias, 2009), which provide access to important task information, as well as social support (Myers et al., 2018; Sias, 2009). In addition, WR-damaged trust diminishes coworker solidarity, resulting in more distant relationships between WR participants and coworkers (Horan & Chory, 2009). These more distant relationships hinder WR participants’ efficient access to the technical, referent, and appraisal information they need to competently perform their jobs and to the cultural, social, procedural, and political information they need to successfully navigate their workplaces (Hart, 2012; Myers et al., 2018). As evidenced here and in past research (Horan & Chory, 2009; Malachowski et al., 2012), trust is also linked to self-disclosure, which is associated with relational closeness between coworkers (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018; Sias, 2009). In addition, a lack of trust predicts employees engaging in antisocial organizational behavior toward those whom they distrust (Chory & Hubbell, 2008), another cause for concern.

In addition to threatening coworker relationship development and WR participants’ access to information, reduced trust also threatens the quality of information WR participants receive from coworkers. As the empirical results derived from our conceptual model and past research (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Horan & Chory, 2009; Malachowski et al., 2012; Sias, 2009) indicate, trust is related to the communication of accurate and complete information between coworkers. As such, engaging in WR may jeopardize the partners’ job performance if they rely solely on coworkers to communicate correct and truthful information. Furthermore, inaccurate, false, or incomplete information can threaten the safety and material welfare of employees and other stakeholders. Therefore, not only are WR participants’ careers jeopardized, but WRs may place many other stakeholders at risk for harm.

One such stakeholder is the WR participant’s third-party coworker who communicates less openly with the WR participant. Employees believe coworkers who engage in deception are less competent and ethical than are those who tell the truth. They also trust said coworkers less and grant them less power (Dunleavy et al., 2010). Although communicating in a guarded manner with WR participants may be an effective means of self-protection and regaining relational equity, as suggested by our model and past research (Chory & Hubbell, 2008; Horan & Chory, 2009: Malachowski et al., 2012), it may also endanger the third-party coworker’s relationship with colleagues. Thus, employees should exercise caution in how much they reveal to and withhold from all colleagues, including WR participants.

The Model’s Results as an Explanation for WR Participation

The results of our hypothesis testing, which were derived from our model, may also explain why individuals engage in WR in the first place. That is, WR participants may enter into WRs because they underestimate the negative effects. If such a characterization is correct, simply educating employees about the potential drawbacks of WR may preclude WR participation or, at least, attenuate WR’s negative effects. If, however, WR participants do fully appreciate the negative perceptions and risk for destructive communication associated with engaging in WR, and they enter into WRs anyway, the fundamental attribution error may be to blame (Cowan & Horan, 2014b; Heider, 1958). WR participants may explain and/or justify engaging in a relationship that may threaten their employment and coworker relationships, that is, a WR, by attributing their WR participation to uncontrollable forces such as “fate” or “human nature,” as opposed to attributing it to their own free choice, purposeful decision making, or personal agency. This method may also help them dissipate the cognitive dissonance (see Festinger, 1957) created by participating in a behavior they know is potentially harmful to their coworker relationships and professional success. Future research should assess WR participants’ cognitive dissonance and the attributions they make for engaging in WRs to test this theoretical explanation of employees’ decisions to engage in WR.

Communicating About WRs to Lessen Negative Communication Effects

WR participants who wish to prevent or mitigate WR’s negative impact on coworker communication may consider personally disclosing the romance to coworkers, as coworkers learn of WRs even if WR participants do not tell them directly. They learn of the WR through partners’ nonverbal behaviors, gossip, and “getting caught in the act” (Cowan & Horan, 2014a).

Cowan and Horan (2014a) discovered that when coworkers found out about a WR through personal disclosures versus impersonal revelations, the reaction to or perception of the WR was more positive. Personal disclosures tended to result in coworkers empathizing and accepting the WR, whereas impersonal revelations tended to result in coworkers experiencing shock or discomfort and gossiping about the WR. Telling coworkers about the romance before they discover it on their own appears to be the best strategy for disclosing WRs. Of course, employees should follow all organizational policies related to WR disclosure, as well. As Horan and Chory (2009) advised, WR participants should be aware of coworkers’ reactions, communicate in ways to manage the negative perceptions, and critically evaluate messages received from coworkers as such messages may be inaccurate or misleading.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study developed a model of WR’s impact on coworker communication and tested hypotheses generated by that model, moving us closer to a more complete understanding of the perceptual and communication dynamics involved in these attempts to blend the work and life domains. Despite the study’s strengths, however, it also has its limitations.

First, the relational status of the focal WR at the time of data collection was not assessed, so we were not able to determine the impact (if any) the WR’s demise or success had on responses. Respondents who had experienced or witnessed painful or messy break-ups may have responded differently than respondents who had experienced or witnessed thriving WRs when they were surveyed. Future research should assess the WR relationship status at the time of data collection, including how and/or why the relationship ended, continued, or flourished.

Second, the study’s cross-sectional design prohibits making assumptions of causality. It is possible that some unidentified factor was responsible for the observed results and/or the direction of causality could be opposite that assumed, that is, those who hold more negative WR beliefs and respond more negatively may avoid engaging in WRs altogether or hierarchical WRs in particular. Continued exploration using a variety of methods, preferably in combination, is still needed to fully understand this complex web of organizational and interpersonal influences.

A third possible limitation was the use of unmatched or unpaired data. In order to gain a more holistic understanding of the similarities and differences between WR participants’ beliefs about their coworkers’ perceptions and behaviors and the actual perceptions and behaviors of those same WR observers/coworkers, future research should employ dyadic data.

Fourth, the snowball convenience sampling used to solicit participation may not have resulted in a representative sample. Although prior workplace relationship studies have used a similar sampling method (e.g., Myers et al., 2018; Salvaggio et al., 2011), our findings should be considered with a degree of caution given the potentially biased nature of the sample. For example, our sample was comprised disproportionately of women (75%), which likely resulted from the recruiting procedure. Furthermore, self-selection may have occurred as all but one respondent (who was not included in the final sample) reported on a heterosexual WR. Our results should be generalized to the wider population with the same caution. Future research should draw a random sample or employ respondent-driven sampling, a series of methods to transform snowball sampling into a nonbiased sampling method (Heckathorn, 2011).

Finally, although the study’s sample was large enough to sufficiently test hypotheses based on the proposed model using regression analyses, we recommend future research draw a larger, more diverse sample and utilize structural equation modeling or path analysis. These methods would provide a more powerful test of the model that would enhance its practical and theoretical value.

Conclusion

The results obtained by testing hypotheses derived from our workplace romance model revealed that perceptions of and behaviors toward workplace romance participants were more deleterious than the participants believed them to be, especially in the case of hierarchical workplace romances. In addition, these perceptions led to reports of diminished coworker trust in workplace romance participants, which predicted less honest and accurate coworker communication with the partners. Our results suggest that organizational members who choose to engage in workplace romance, as well as their coworkers and their workplaces, may benefit from increased awareness and attention to both the advantages and the drawbacks of this increasingly common, yet contested, workplace relationship.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association in Seattle, WA, May 2014. This article is original and is not under consideration or published elsewhere.

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.

ORCID iD

Rebecca M. Chory

Notes

Author Biographies

Rebecca M. Chory (PhD, Michigan State University) is an associate professor in the Department of Management at Frostburg State University. Her research interests include workplace relationships, fairness and ethics in organizational and instructional contexts, and antisocial organizational behavior.

Hailey Gillen Hoke (PhD, West Virginia University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Weber State University. Her research focuses on interpersonal relationships in the organizational context, including workplace friendships and workplace romances.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2

Adkins

(2016, May 11). What millennials want from work and life. Business Journal. http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/191435/millennials-work-life.aspx

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bennhold

(2019, January 27). Another side of #MeToo: Male managers fearful of mentoring women. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/27/world/europe/metoo-backlash-gender-equality-davos-men.html

Biggs

Matthewman

Fultz

(2012). Romantic relationships in organisational settings: Attitudes on workplace romance in the UK and USA. Gender in Management, 27(4), 271-285. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211244803

Brown

T. J.

Allgeier

E. R.

(1996). The impact of participant characteristics, perceived motives, and job behaviors on co-workers’ evaluations of workplace romances. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26(7), 577-595. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb02732.x

Chan-Serafin

Teo

Minbashian

Cheng

Wang

(2016). The perils of dating your boss: The role of hierarchical workplace romance and sex on evaluators’ career advancement decisions for lower status romance participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(3), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516635285

Chory

R. M.

(2019). Workplace romance. In Ponzetti

J. J.

Jr (Ed.), Macmillan encyclopedia of families, marriages, and intimate relationships (pp. 918-922). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA/Gale.

Chory

R. M.

Gillen Hoke

H. G.

(2019). Young love at work: Perceived effects of workplace romance among millennial generation organizational members. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 153 (6), 575-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1581722

10.

Chory

R. M.

Hubbell

A. P.

(2008). Organizational justice and managerial trust as predictors of antisocial employee responses. Communication Quarterly, 56 (4), 357-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370802448121

11.

Cole

(2009). Workplace romances: A justice analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 24(4), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9117-1

12.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

K. Y.

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 424-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

13.

Cowan

R. L.

Horan

S. M.

(2014a). Love at the office? Understanding workplace romance disclosures and reactions from the coworker perspective. Western Journal of Communication, 78(2), 238-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.866688

14.

Cowan

R. L.

Horan

S. M.

(2014b). Why are you dating him? Contemporary motives for workplace romance. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 15(1), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17459435.2014.955587

15.

Cowan

R. L.

Horan

S. M.

(2021). Understanding information and communication technology use in workplace romance escalation and de-escalation. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329488417731860

16.

Dillard

J. P.

(1987). Close relationships at work: Perceptions of the motives and performance of relational participants. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407587042005

17.

Dunleavy

K. N.

Chory

R. M.

Goodboy

A. K.

(2010). Responses to deception in the workplace: Perceptions of credibility, power, and trustworthiness. Communication Studies, 61 (2), 239-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510971003603879

18.

Festinger

(1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.

19.

Gibson

K. R.

(2018). Can I tell you something? How disruptive self-disclosure changes who “we” are. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 570-589. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0317

20.

Gillen Hoke

H. G.

Chory

R. M.

(2015a, November). Equity theory in workplace relationships: An examination of relationship type, sex-composition of the relationship, and peer sex. Manuscript presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Las Vegas, NV.

21.

Gillen Hoke

H. G.

Chory

R. M.

(2015b). Throwing stones at the glass partition: Responses to coworkers’ cross-sex workplace friendships. European Journal of Management, 15 (2), 85-96. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.18374/EJM-15-2.5

22.

Hart

Z. P.

(2012). Message content and sources during organizational socialization. Journal of Business Communication, 49(3), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612446731

23.

Heckathorn

D. D.

(2011). Comment: Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 355-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x

24.

Heider

(1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000

25.

Horan

S. M.

Chory

R. M.

(2009). When work and love mix: Perceptions of peers in workplace romances. Western Journal of Communication 73 (4), 349-369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310903279042

26.

Horan

S. M.

Chory

R. M.

(2011). Understanding work/life blending: Credibility implications for those who date at work. Communication Studies, 62 (5), 563-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2011.582663

27.

Horan

S. M.

Chory

R. M.

(2013). Relational implications of gay and lesbian workplace romances: Understanding trust, deception, and credibility. Journal of Business Communication, 50 (2), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612474993

28.

Horan

S. M.

Cowan

R. L.

Carberry

E. G.

(2019). Spillover effects: Communication involved with dissolved workplace romances. Communication Studies, 70 (5), 564-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2019.1658613

29.

Jones

G. E.

(1999). Hierarchical workplace romances: An experimental examination of team member perceptions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1057-1072. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199912)20:7%3C1057::AID-JOB956%3E3.0.CO;2-O

30.

Judd

C. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), 602-619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8100500502

31.

Kelley

H. H.

(1973). The process of causal attributions. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225

32.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Fairchild

A. J.

Fritz

M. S.

(2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542

33.

Mainiero

L. A.

(1986). A review and analysis of power dynamics in organizational romances. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 750-762. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4283926

34.

Mainiero

L. A.

Jones

K. J.

(2013a). Sexual harassment versus workplace romance: Social media spillover and textual harassment in the workplace. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(3), 187-203. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0031

35.

Mainiero

L. A.

Jones

K. J.

(2013b). Workplace romance 2.0: Developing a communication ethics model to address potential sexual harassment from inappropriate social media contacts between coworkers. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 367-379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1349-8

36.

Malachowski

C. C.

Chory

R. M.

Claus

C. J.

(2012). Mixing pleasure with work: Employee perceptions of and responses to workplace romance. Western Journal of Communication, 76 (4), 358-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2012.656215

37.

McCroskey

J. C.

(2006). Reliability and validity of the generalized attitude measure and generalized belief measure. Communication Quarterly, 54(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370600877893

38.

McGovern

(1999). Take action, heed warnings to end workplace violence. Occupational Hazards. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-63860273/take-action-heed-warnings-to-end-workplace-violence

39.

McLaren

E. S.

(1994). Romantic relationships at work and attributions for the occupational success of participants [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Canterbury.

40.

Myers

S. A.

Cranmer

G. A.

Goldman

Z. W.

Sollitto

Gillen

H. G.

Ball

(2018). Differences in information seeking among organizational peers: Perceptions of appropriateness, importance, and frequency. International Journal of Business Communication, 55(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415573928

41.

Omarzu

(2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when individuals will self-disclose. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_05

42.

Petronio

(2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. SUNY Press.

43.

Petronio

(2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.743426

44.

Phillips

K. W.

Rothbard

N. P.

Dumas

T. L.

(2009). To disclose or not to disclose? Status distance and self-disclosure in diverse environments. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 710-732. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok710

45.

Pierce

C. A.

(1998). Factors associated with participating in a romantic relationship in a work environment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28(18), 1712-1730. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01342.x

46.

Pierce

C. A.

Aguinis

(2003). Romantic relationships in organizations: A test of a model of formation and impact factors. Management Research, 1(2), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1108/15365430380000524

47.

Pierce

C. A.

Aguinis

(2009). Moving beyond a legalistic approach to managing workplace romances: Organizationally sensible recommendations for HR leaders. Human Resource Management, 48(3), 447-464. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20289

48.

Pierce

C. A.

Aguinis

Adams

S. K. R.

(2000). Effects of a dissolved workplace romance and rater characteristics on responses to a sexual harassment accusation. Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 869-880. https://doi.org/10.5465/1556415

49.

Pierce

C. A.

Broberg

B. J.

McClure

J. R.

Aguinis

(2004). Responding to sexual harassment complaints: Effects of a dissolved romance on decision-making standards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 95(1), 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2003.06.001

50.

Pierce

C. A.

Byrne

Aguinis

(1996). Attraction in organizations: A model of workplace romance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 5-32. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17:1%3C5::AID-JOB734%3E3.0.CO;2-E

51.

Pillemer

Rothbard

N. P.

(2018). Friends without benefits: Understanding the dark sides of workplace friendship. Academy of Management Review, 43(4), 635-660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309

52.

Quinn

R. E.

(1977). Coping with cupid: The formation, impact, and management of romantic relationships in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 30-45. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391744

53.

Reis

H. T.

Aron

(2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00065.x

54.

Salvaggio

A. N.

Streich

Hopper

J. E.

Pierce

C. A.

(2011). Why do fools fall in love (at work)? Factors associated with the incidence of workplace romance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(4), 906-937. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00741.x

55.

Sias

P. M.

(2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace relationships. Sage. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4135/9781452204031

56.

Smith

S. A.

Brunner

S. R.

(2017). To reveal or conceal: Using communication privacy management theory to understand disclosures in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 429-446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917692896

57.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2013). Workplace romance. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/pages/shrm-workplace-romance-findings.aspx

58.

U.S. Department of Labor/U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). American time use survey. https://www.bls.gov/tus/#tables

59.

Vault Careers. (2018). The 2018 Vault office romance survey results. http://www.vault.com/blog/workplace-issues/2018-vault-office-romance-survey-results/

60.

Vault Careers. (2019). Attention cubicle cupids: The 2019 office romance survey results are in! https://www.vault.com/blogs/workplace-issues/2019-vault-office-romance-survey-results

61.

Wheeless

L. R.

(1978). A follow-up study of the relationships among trust, disclosure, and interpersonal solidarity. Human Communication Research, 4(2), 143-157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1978.tb00604.x

62.

Wheeless

L. R.

Grotz

(1978). The measurement of trust and its relationship to self-disclosure. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 250-257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00523.x

63.

Worthy

Gary

A. L.

Kahn

G. M.

(1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027990