TAKING THE JONESES (AND THEIR STUFF) DOWN A NOTCH OR TWO:
CONSUMER ENVY, HARMING BEHAVIORS, AND OUTCOME VALUATION
Cait Lamberton
University of Pittsburgh
Kirk Kristofferson
University of British Columbia
Darren W. Dahl
University of British Columbia
November 2013
Despite centuries of descriptive and experimental exploration, our understanding of envy is
surprisingly scattered in method, context, and breadth of outcomes studied. The present paper
seeks to address these limitations. First, we develop an experimental method that cleanly elicits
envy. Using this method, we capture a.) participants’ tendencies to help or hurt envied others,
given both overt and covert opportunities and, b.) envy’s effects on valuation of envied
outcomes. Individual self-esteem determines responses to envy on both sets of measures, while
also harmonizing existing conflicts in the ego threat and aggression literature: While higher selfesteem consumers tend to refrain from overtly harming envied others, they may do so covertly.
Conversely, while lower self-esteem consumers publicly denigrate envied others, they do not
privately. Further, while higher self-esteem consumers may preserve or even enhance their
pursuit of an envied product, using envy to motivate purchase among lower self-esteem
consumers is likely to prove largely ineffective.
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
2
Envy is defined as the emotion felt “when a person lacks another’s superior quality,
achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it” (Parrott and
Smith 1993, 906). As such, envy may be experienced in the marketplace, rooted in others’
ownership of desirable goods, and in private life, when others have opportunities to which we
lack access (Smith and Kim 2007). Recent research highlights envy’s multifaceted effects, from
its potential to act as a purchase motivator (van de Ven, Zeelenberg and Pieters 2010) or incite
interpersonal damage (Parrott 1991; Parrott and Smith 1993). Envy is also believed to have
broad societal effects, being vilified both by Liberals, who argue that unfettered capitalism
generates “envy in the poor and depravity in the rich,” (D’Souza 2001), and by Conservatives,
who accuse Liberals of using envy to drive “class warfare” (Lavender 2012; McAvity 2012).
Given envy’s presumed power across domains, one might expect that scholars would
have devoted systematic and thorough effort to its explication. A review of work on envy in
philosophy, psychology, and marketing, though, suggests that we may have only partial
frameworks for understanding envy. First, most envy research considers only person or productrelated outcomes of envy, despite the fact that both elements are integral in the envy experience
(Smith and Kim 2007). In addition, most research restricts investigation to a single domain such
as consumer markets, social interactions, or workplaces. Thus, we do not know if envy may be
good for business but bad for people (or vice-versa), or if conclusions drawn in one context will
generalize to others. Further, while hints in past literature suggest that individual differences in
envy’s expression may exist (Tai, Narayanan and McAllister 2012; van de Ven et al. 2010), most
envy research ignores psychographic factors that might predict envy’s potential effects across
wide swaths of the population. Thus, even if we begin to understand what envy is, we can say
little about among whom it will be observed, and in what ways. Finally, most envy research
2
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
3
relies on retrospection or scenario-driven forecasting. As envy is perceived as an ego threat
(Tesser, Miller and Moore 1988) and is socially undesirable (Smith and Kim 2007), confirmation
with controlled experiments is important if we wish to make confident causal statements.
The present paper enriches our ability to understand envy by addressing these theoretical,
substantive and methodological limitations. We first validate an experimental method that
cleanly generates envy, capturing expressions toward both envied individuals and envied objects.
We also test our predictions across multiple populations and in numerous consumption situations
previously used in the envy literature (consumer product valuation, desired opportunities and
achievements). This approach allows us to offer novel theoretical insights: First, we establish
global trait self-esteem as a moderator of envy’s interpersonal effects, holding constant
contextual factors. Second, we harmonize past findings in self-esteem and harming behaviours
by discriminating between overt and covert harming opportunities. Finally, we find that selfesteem serves a positive, “buffering” role with regard to envied items, thereby extending our
insight regarding findings in recent consumer research (e.g., van de Ven et al. 2010).
We next present the theoretical background for our work. A synthesis of key papers in
envy allows us to highlight points of consensus, patterns and gaps in previous literature. We then
address these gaps by examining prior literature in self-esteem and harming behaviours, arguing
that careful handling of these constructs allows us to predict envy’s effects and harmonize
conflicting results in previous literature. Three experiments support our theoretical predictions.
We close by discussing the implications of our work for theory and practice, and by considering
intriguing patterns in our results that may open doors to additional future research.
3
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
4
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
Distinctive Characteristics of Envy
A review of key envy research allows us to distinguish its basic anatomy (see table 1).
Envy results from an upward social comparison to a superior other in terms of an aspect that is
important to the self (Smith and Kim 2007). One critical component of envy is the ego threat
experienced by engaging in this upward comparison – envy makes us feel worse about ourselves
because others are doing better than we are (Tesser, Miller and Moore 1988). This socialcomparison-based ego threat distinguishes envy from other negative emotions with which it may
at times co-exist, such as disappointment, sadness, or anger (Smith, Kim and Parrott 1988).
The ego threat generated by envy creates a drive to equalize the gap between the self and
the envied other. There are a number of ways by which consumers can satisfy this drive, all of
which may be called “expressions” of envy. First, envious individuals can pull the envied
individual down to the level of the self (Heider 1958; van de Ven et al. 2009). Such attempts to
lower the relative position of the envied other are generally referred to as “harming behaviours.”
Second, envious individuals can also seek to “level up,” expressing enhanced motivation in
relevant tasks to improve the self (van de Ven et al. 2009). Third, making the envied object less
desirable can reduce the ego threat generated by envy: if someone has something non-selfrelevant, there is simply less reason for me to envy them (Smith and Kim 2007).
Delineating the gaps in our understanding
While the literature converges on some points, a number of gaps also emerge from this
review. First, note that the majority of envy research focuses on bringing the envied other down
to the level of the envious self. This type of envy has been termed “envy proper” (Cohen4
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
5
Charash 2009; Parrot and Smith 1993). An alternate recent conceptualization distinguishes
between two types of envy - malicious and benign (van de Ven et al. 2009, 2010, 2011). Van de
Ven et al. (2009) argue that the when an envied advantage is seen as earned or deserved,
consumers experience benign envy. Under benign envy, individuals seek self-improvement as a
means of closing the gap. Given the absence of hostility, some debate has emerged as to whether
or not benign manifestations should be referred to as “envy” at all (Cohen-Charash 2009, 2013).
The focus of the present investigation is not to engage in this debate. Rather, though we
will empirically demonstrate null effects under benign envy, we focus on providing a clearer
explanation of the dangerous effects previously associated with malicious envy. Of note to the
present investigation, malicious enviers show a decreased willingness-to-pay for the target
product (van de Ven et al. 2010, study 3) - a startling, and potentially costly finding, particularly
given the use of advertisements and promotions based in envy products (i.e., Gucci’s “Envy”
perfume; MassageEnvy spa; LG’s “EnV” cell phone; HP’s ENVY line of notebook computers).
Our investigation will therefore help determine if even under the adverse conditions created in its
malicious form, marketers can ever safely use envy to motivate consumer purchase.
A review of table 1 also suggests a strong focus on the interpersonal consequences of
envy. Only more recently has research begun to investigate effects on envied outcomes.
Consumers experiencing envy naturally react to both the individual holding the desired
advantage and the object that makes salient their lower position. As such, to paint a fuller picture
of envy’s natural consequences, it is necessary to develop a framework that can address both
effects on individuals and on products.
5
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
6
Moreover, table 1 suggests that little prior work has considered the role that individual
differences may play in envy’s expression. Recent work, however, calls for such explorations.
Tai et al. (2012) argue that when individuals experience envy, both helpful and harming drives
may be activated. Importantly, the authors propose that, “core self-evaluations” should predict
whether one “levels-up” or “pulls-down.” Though interesting, such contentions lack thorough
theoretical or empirical examination. Therefore, we can say little about the individuals among
whom envy’s effects are most likely to be observed or why. We will therefore seek to address
these gaps: When are the different expressions of envy most likely to be observed? Will they be
observed with regard to both individuals and products? And what role will individual differences
play in envy’s expressions?
Envy as ego-threat: Self-Esteem and Harming Behaviors
To answer these questions, we return to the essential anatomy of envy. Recall that it is a
characteristic aspect of envy that it generates a sense of ego threat (Cohen-Charash and Mueller
2007). Because envy presents an ego threat, we propose that individuals with different levels of
global self-esteem (i.e., a sense of one’s personal worth; Rosenberg 1979) will express their envy
in divergent ways with regard to both envied individuals and objects. This conclusion is based on
analysis of patterns in past work considering the relationship between self-esteem and aggression
in the face of ego threat. We summarize relevant research in table 2.
Self-esteem and interpersonal behaviors: conflicting predictions. On one hand, one might
infer from table 2 that high self-esteem prevents individuals from lashing out when experiencing
envy. Such a conclusion relies on the “buffer” hypothesis: high trait self-esteem protects one’s
view of themselves, allowing them to experience less anxiety or reactivity in the face of ego
6
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
7
threat (Greenberg et al. 1992). Results consistent with this argument include Oates and Forrest
(1985), Rosenberg, Schooler and Schoenbach (1989) and Fergusson and Howard (2002) (see
table 2 for others). As a whole, this work argues that envy will prompt lower self-esteem
individuals to increase harming behaviors, but does not propose the same for individuals with
higher self-esteem.
On the other hand, past research may also be interpreted as predicting the opposite: that
envy will lead higher self-esteem individuals to display high levels of hostility. For these
individuals, envy presents a particularly salient ego-threat. After all, in Western societies, having
high self-esteem is associated with being a “winner” as opposed to a “loser” (Tesser, Miller and
Moore 1988). As envy temporarily places an individual in the “loser” position, it strikes at the
heart of a higher self-esteem individual’s self-concept (Heatherton and Vohs 2000). For example,
Baumeister, Smart and Boden (1996) note that when a high self-esteem person’s favorable selfview is threatened, the likelihood of aggression may increase relative to the absence of such a
threat. Such harming does not always have to be physical: Beauregard and Dunning (1998, study
2) show that higher self-esteem individuals decrease rating of a target’s intelligence relative to
their own when their ego is threatened. Further, results reported by Cohen-Charash and Mueller
(2007, study 2) support such a tie between envy, self-esteem and harming behaviors (see also
Barth 1988). When individuals felt a situation was unfair, higher self-esteem raised harming
likelihood. This research would predict that envy will prompt higher self-esteem individuals to
increase their likelihood of harming envied others, but would not propose the same for
individuals with lower self-esteem.
Harmonizing Conflicting Perspectives – The Nature of Harming Opportunities. A careful
review of patterns in the literature provides both empirical and theoretical reasons to predict that
7
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
8
this apparent contradiction can be explained. Specifically, results can be harmonized by
considering the nature of the harming opportunity used as dependent measures in these papers.
In column 3, table 2, we distinguish between overt harming opportunities, where
individuals engage in behaviors that are publicly observed by others, and covert harming
opportunities, where individuals’ behaviors cannot be observed by others. A strong pattern
emerges: when harming opportunities are overt, aggression is most likely among lower selfesteem individuals. However, when harming opportunities are covert, aggression appears to be
seen among higher self-esteem individuals. Interestingly, no research has intentionally focused
on one type of harming as opposed to another or systematically manipulated harming type. We
next describe the formal predictions that arise from the recognition of this pattern.
Higher Self-Esteem Yields Covert Harming
Past work suggesting a positive relationship between self-esteem and harming behavior
under ego threat primarily reports behaviors that are covert in nature. In such work, (i.e.,
Schimmel 1993), higher self-esteem individuals can be said to “conspire” to lower an envied
other’s position (Schimmel 1993, 18, as quoted in Belk, 2011), using behind-the-scenes rather
than public methods. Such behaviors are also similar to those studied in the management domain
as “social undermining,” defined as “behavior intended to hinder the ability of others to establish
and maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related successes, and favorable
reputations” (Duffy, Ganster and Pagon 2002, 333). For example, in Cohen-Charash and Mueller
(2007), individuals wrote about a time when they felt envy in the workplace. They then rated the
extent to which they engaged in harming behaviors that could often be considered covert in
nature. For example, the battery of harming behaviors included “sabotage,” “interfering with X’s
performance,” “provide incorrect information to mislead X,” and “slow down all correspondence
8
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
9
with X.” All of these activities are likely to occur without public notice, by design, and were
more likely as self-esteem rose. Similarly, in research where higher self-esteem individuals are
seen to elevate their own self-ratings and lower those of the individual who presents an ego
threat (i.e., Heatherton and Vohs 2000), ratings are not intended to be shared. That is, there is
little way for a high self-esteem individual’s denigrating behavior to be publicly observed.
Further, there may be reasons why observable harming behavior would be particularly
unappealing to higher self-esteem individuals. Failure to achieve a desired outcome (as in envy
experiences) is more likely to prompt higher self-esteem individuals to focus on similarities
between themselves and successful others (Wood et al. 1994). Further, higher self-esteem
individuals tend to seek public affiliation with “winners” and hope to distance themselves from
the group of “losers” around them (Cialdini and Richardson 1980). If observable by others,
harming behaviors may signal to “winners” that an individual is dangerous (Pellegrini, Bartini
and Brooks 1999), likely leading to future exclusion from the group. Obvious attempts to hurt
others, particularly inasmuch as they are evidence of envy, generally violate social norms and
open the actor to public critique and rejection (Crick 1996; Smith and Kim 2007). As such, we
anticipate that higher self-esteem individuals will refrain from harming envied others if doing so
can be publicly observed. Thus, we predict:
H1: Relative to a non-envy experience, envy increases higher self-esteem individuals’
tendencies to engage in covert, but not overt, harming behaviours.
Lower Self-Esteem Yields Overt Harming
If envy prompts higher self-esteem individuals to engage in covert harming behaviors
toward envied others, what can we expect of their lower self-esteem counterparts? When
9
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
10
researchers have reported heightened aggression among lower self-esteem individuals, they
capture aggression in terms of overt, response modes, also called “externalizing behaviors.” For
example, lower self-esteem individuals who experience ego threats are observed to display overt
aggression, public antisocial behavior and delinquency (Baumeister et al. 2003; Donnelan et al.
2005). Similarly, overt aggression in the form of spousal abuse was associated with lower as
opposed to higher self-esteem (Murphy, Stosny and Morrel 2005), and is argued to be driven by
a need to “defend a threatened sense of self.” Barry, Frick and Killian (2003) measured conduct
disorder using the DSM’s Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (Shaffer et al. 1996), a
process individually administered by an adult interviewer. This measure includes publically
observable behaviors such as truancy, physical cruelty to people or animals and loud, rowdy or
unruly behavior in public. Oates and Forrest (1985)’s research shows that lower self-esteem
parents who face challenges are more likely to engage in child abuse and abandonment than are
higher self-esteem parents. Thus, there appears to be a strong linkage between ego threat, low
self-esteem, and overt harming behaviors. Given that envy generates an ego threat, we would
therefore anticipate the same relationship under envy.
By contrast, it is unclear what lower self-esteem individuals who experience envy will
do covertly. In Cialdini and Richardson’s (1980) work, individuals with situationally-low selfesteem privately rated their own school more positively compared to those who had not received
negative feedback about themselves. It may be that lower self-esteem individuals will show an
affiliation pattern like that seen in Cialdini and Richardson (1980) – showing covert affiliation
with the envied other when given opportunities to do so. The affiliation with envied others in
covert ways may allow self-enhancement in a way that is “safe” – that is, carrying little risk of
public scrutiny or rejection by winners – consistent with Wood et al. (1994). However, given the
10
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
11
lack of research on lower self-esteem and covert behaviors, we will treat this relationship as an
empirical question, restricting our formal prediction to the overt relationship described above.
Formally:
H2: Relative to a non-envy experience, envy increases lower self-esteem individuals’
tendencies to engage in overt, but not covert, harming behaviours.
Valuation of the Envied Outcome
We believe that self-esteem also helps inform predictions regarding outcome-related
effects of envy. Note that according to the definition of envy, these outcomes may be objects,
achievements or opportunities. All of these outcomes require motivation to attain, whether in the
form of willingness-to-pay, openness to exert future effort, or preserved desire. Past work
suggests that motivation is contingent on self-esteem. For example, higher self-esteem
individuals have also been shown to persist at a task after initial failure, suggesting that higher
self-esteem individuals may preserve their motivation to pursue an envied good or experience
after learning that they have not presently received it (Baumeister et al. 2003). Further, higher
self-esteem is associated with a strong tendency to preserve belief in one’s own prior judgment
(Swann, Rentfrow and Guinn 2003). Therefore, higher self-esteem individuals may preserve
high valuation of a product or outcome even after experiencing envy.
By contrast, given that low self-esteem is often correlated with low self-efficacy
(Baumeister et al. 2003), having failed to obtain a given good once, lower self-esteem
individuals are unlikely to feel optimistic that future attempts will be successful. Persistence, for
these individuals, is less likely than for their higher self-esteem counterparts. Further, lower selfesteem individuals are often aware that their opinions and perceptions are flawed (Baumeister
1993). Thus, we believe that they will be more likely to revise their valuations of an envied item.
11
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
12
Devaluing the envied good or outcome, allows them to make the loss less central to their own
preferences or identities. Doing so should reduce the negative affect associated with envy (Smith
and Kim 2007; Salovey and Rodin 1991). Therefore, we propose that lower self-esteem
individuals will respond to envy by denigrating the envied outcome or lowering their own
motivation to pursue it, showing an anecdotal “sour grapes” effect. Formally:
H3:
As self-esteem increases (decreases), the motivation to pursue the envied
outcome is better preserved (diminished) in envy as opposed to non-envy
situations.
Note that our hypotheses focus on the comparison between envy and no-envy situations. This
approach will allow us to make causal claims about envy’s effects at various levels of selfesteem, and therefore, to contribute to the envy literature most directly. However, these patterns
naturally also lend themselves to predictions about the main effect of self-esteem within envycreating situations. Specifically, under envy, it may be inferred that a.) higher self-esteem
individuals will engage in more covert harming behavior than will lower self-esteem individuals
and b.) lower self-esteem individuals will engage in more overt harming behaviors than higher
self-esteem individuals. In addition to testing the simple effects formally hypothesized, we will
provide regression analysis testing for these main effects.
Three studies support these predictions. In each, participants observe a confederate
receiving a desired outcome – a highly desired product (study 1), a monetary award (study 2), or
an internship opportunity (study 3). We then capture covert (all studies) and overt (studies 2 and
3) harming behaviors and collect either product valuations (study 1) or motivations to continue
pursuit of the envied outcome (studies 2 and 3). In addition to using experiences pre-tested to
create actual envy, but not other negative emotions, replication across operationalizations of
12
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
13
envy, harming behaviors, and motivational measures suggests a strong causal case, bolstering
findings previously based on correlational inference or potentially-biased or confounded recall.
STUDY 1
Study 1 has two goals goals: 1.) to validate an envy-inducing experimental situation in a
controlled setting and 2.) to use this method to in a first investigation of the relationship between
self-esteem, covert harming behaviors (H1), and motivation to pursue the envied outcome (H3).
Method
Pretest1. In our pretest, lab participants were randomly assigned to individual computer
stations one through four, with a confederate always situated at seat five. Participants were in
view of each other during the experiment. First, participants were asked to stand up and
introduce themselves to the other people in the room, stating their first names, majors, and seat
locations. Participants were instructed to remember this information for a later memory study.
Importantly, all participants met the confederate “Jenny”, who stated she was of the same major
as the study participants. This introduction task was included to insure that participants perceived
the confederate as similar to themselves, an important condition for experiencing envy (Smith
and Kim 1999; van de Ven et al. 2009).
1
We chose to conduct a separate pre-test rather than an in-study manipulation check of envy for two reasons. First,
given its non-normative nature, envy is among the emotions least likely to be admitted (Smith and Kim 2007). Thus,
a “manipulation check” of envy at the actual time of experience is likely to be largely driven by variance in
sensitivity to social desirability, which is known to vary across self-esteem levels and gender (Joubert 1991).
Second, an in-study envy measure would likely distort responses to other measures. If envy were measured prior to
harming behaviours or motivation to pursue the envied good, it may be alleviated, obscuring our ability to see its
consequences (Manucia, Baumann and Cialdini 1984). If envy were measured after our focal dependent measures, it
may either already have been absorbed by the opportunity to harm or denigrate, or may simply reflect rationalization
for the prior responses (Feldman and Lynch 1988).
13
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
14
Immediately after the introductions, a computer program prompted participants to enter
the first names, majors and seat numbers of the other participants. This procedure ensured that
participants recalled the confederate. Participants next completed an unrelated task taking
approximately 20 minutes. Once participants had completed this task, the experimenter informed
them that the present experimental session was sponsored by the local National Hockey League
(NHL) club. As part of this sponsorship, a pair of front row tickets to a game against a top rival
would be awarded to one participant. Participants were then instructed to retrieve an envelope
taped underneath their seats. In each of the participants’ envelopes was a message that read
“Thank you for participating.” In the envy condition, the confederate “found” and displayed the
two hockey game tickets, expressed excitement and was congratulated by the experimenter. In
the control condition, the confederate received the same note as other participants.
Next, participants were asked to continue to the next task individually, presented as an
emotions inventory. Participants were asked to report the extent to which they presently felt the
emotions used on the PANAS scale, augmented with “envious” and “jealous2.” Responses were
collected using the PANAS scale labels (1 = clearly does not describe my feelings, 2 = mostly
does not describe my feelings, 3 = somewhat describes my feelings, 4 = mostly describes my
feelings, and 5 = clearly describes my feelings).
A total of 36 participants took part in the pretest (18 in the envy sessions, 18 in the noenvy sessions). Data were subjected to a factor analysis using a varimax rotation. Five factors
emerged, with one item not loading at > .5 on any factor (giddy), which was removed from the
analysis. Items constituting the other five factors were averaged to form indices (positive arousal
2
We are aware that envy and jealousy are distinct constructs (Smith and Kim 2007). However, since colloquial
speech often uses them interchangeably, they are often handled as equivalent in envy measures taken in prior
research (e.g., Parrott and Smith 1993; Smith, Kim and Parrott 1988, van de Ven et al. 2010). Results do not change
if we analyze envy without creating an index with jealousy.
14
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
15
index: interested, enthusiastic, determined, excited, attentive, active, α =.90; shame index: guilty,
ashamed, afraid, alpha = .77; negative affect index: depressed, scared, distressed, sad, α = .83;
envy index: envious, jealous, α = .92; pride index: strong, proud, irritable, α = .76). We then used
session condition (envy/control) to predict the outcomes of each index. Results are shown in
table 3. While no significant differences emerged with regard to the other emotions reported,
envy was significantly greater in the envy sessions as opposed to control sessions.
Insert Table 3 about here
Main Experiment. Study 1 followed the method used in the pretest, resulting in a 2 (envy
versus control session) x continuous measure (self-esteem) between-participants design. Data
was collected in two phases. Phase one took place at the beginning of the semester, and consisted
of a survey capturing 457 potential participants’ preferences for a number of sporting and arts
events occurring locally, as well as the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (1979), which provided a
self-esteem score for each participant.
Phase two occurred four to six weeks later. Ninety-one undergraduate students from the
same subject pool as in the pretest participated for course credit and were randomly assigned to
either envy or control conditions. Procedures were identical to those in the pretest until the award
of the tickets, at which point we captured our dependent measures.
After the tickets were awarded, participants were told that in the next study they would be
randomly assigned to report their evaluations of one other person in the session as part of an
“impression formation” task. In reality, each participant evaluated the confederate (Jenny). As
15
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
16
part of an ostensibly separate study, participants also reported their willingness-to-pay for NHL
hockey tickets along with a list of other local events.
Measures. We gauged participants’ covert harming behaviors by analyzing their reported
impression of Jenny (the confederate) during the “impression formation” task: bitterness, ill will,
and annoyance (α = .86, averaged to form a covert harming index). Note that this type of
measure is similar to that used in prior studies of ego threat and self-esteem (Heatherton and
Vohs 2000). Further, this denigration opportunity allows a means of responding to one’s envy
without the possibility of public shame (Smith and Kim 2007), thus making it appropriately
covert. Participants’ willingness-to-pay for the hockey tickets constituted our measure of their
valuation of the envied outcome (following van de Ven et al. 2010).
Analysis and Results
Self-esteem scores from the pre-measures were mean-centered at 2.14 (SD = 0.49) and
experimental session condition was contrast-coded as -1 (control) or 1 (envy - winner) for all
analyses. In all three experiments, a floodlight analysis following Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch and
McClelland (2013) was conducted to probe interactions for the predicted simple effects of envy
(versus control) at various levels of self-esteem. As persuasively argued in Spiller et al. (2013),
this analysis is more effective than previous “spotlight analyses,” as it allows us to detect simple
effects of envy as opposed to no envy at a continuous range of self-esteem, rather than simply at
point estimates that may not be appropriate for a given dataset. Further, this approach allows us
to compare across study contexts, to see which contexts appear to be most sensitive to the
interactive effects of self-esteem and envy. Reporting of this analysis is patterned after recent use
of this method (see Mohr, Lichtenstein and Janiszewski 2012). Given the complexity of our data,
16
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
17
we follow the same pattern in reporting results across all three studies. First, for each dependent
measure, we report the floodlight analysis directly relevant to our hypotheses. We then report the
main effect of self-esteem within the envy and no-envy conditions; though these tests do not
directly test our hypotheses, they provide additional insight into our data. Any other unexpected
effects are noted in each study’s discussion.
Manipulation checks. All participants noted the correct name, major and seat number of
the confederate in the “memory test” and were retained.
Covert harming behaviors. Hypothesis 1 predicts that higher self-esteem individuals will
express envy by increasing their likelihood to covertly harm envied individuals relative to a noenvy situation. To test this prediction, an ANOVA was estimated using mean-centered selfesteem, envy versus control condition, and their interaction to predict denigration of the
confederate. A marginal effect of self-esteem emerged, such that higher self-esteem individuals
expressed marginally more negativity toward the confederate than did lower self-esteem
individuals overall (F(1, 139) = 2.87, p = .09). However, this effect was qualified by a significant
interaction of self-esteem and envy condition (b = -.08, F(1, 139) = 6.64, p = .01).
Decomposing this interaction using the Johnson-Neyman technique allows us to identify
the ranges of self-esteem where the simple effect of envy versus control session is significant. In
this context, it does not appear that self-esteem needs to be particularly high for envy to generate
covert harming behaviors: a significant positive effect of envy on negativity toward the
confederate exists for any self-esteem level greater than .12 (or .24 SDs) above the mean (BJN =
.86, SE = .44, p = .05). This analysis supports hypothesis 1 – when experiencing envy, high selfesteem individuals covertly harmed the advantaged other significantly more than when not
17
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
18
experiencing envy. Further, a regression analysis shows that while there was no main effect of
self-esteem on evaluation of the confederate in the control sessions (b = -.80, t = -.77, p = .44),
higher self-esteem was associated with more negativity toward the confederate in the envy
sessions (b = 3.89, t = 2.60, p = .01).
Valuation of the Envied Product. An ANOVA with willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the
hockey tickets as the dependent measure was also estimated to test hypothesis 3. Neither selfesteem nor envy condition main effects predicted WTP. However, a significant interaction of
self-esteem and envy condition emerged (b = 4.05, F(1, 140) = 6.51, p = .01. Johnson-Neyman
significance tests reveal that individuals with self-esteem at or above .57 (or approximately 1.16
SDs) above the mean value raised their valuation of the tickets when they observed a confederate
win them as opposed to when they did not (BJN = 23.57, SE = 11.92, p = .05). Further, we
observe a negative simple effect of envy on willingness-to-pay at values of self-esteem equal to
or less than .55, (or 1.12 SDs), below the mean (BJN = -22.04, SE = 11.13, p = .05).Regression
analysis also shows that self-esteem did not have a main effect on WTP in control sessions (b = 22.86, t = -1.27, p = .21), but that higher self-esteem was associated with a higher WTP for
hockey tickets in the envy sessions (b = 58.20, t = 2.23, p =.03).
Discussion
Study 1 induced envy and measured its behavioral consequences in a temporallyproximate manner. This method allows us to test for differences in interpersonal behavior and
product valuation under envy as opposed to no-envy situations. As predicted in hypothesis1,
envy prompts higher self-esteem individuals to engage in covert harming behaviors toward an
envied individual. In this sample, self-esteem only needed to be slightly above the mean value
18
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
19
for this effect to emerge. Given the ego-threat involved in envy, such findings are conceptually
consistent with prior work in ego threat and self-esteem. (Heatherton and Vohs 2000). Though
not predicted, we note that we also see a marginally-significant negative effect of envy at very
low levels of self-esteem (.94, or 1.92 SDs below the mean) (BJN = 1.62, SE = .94, p = .08). That
is, very low self-esteem individuals engaged in slightly less covert harming behaviors when
experiencing envy than when not, perhaps suggesting that envy leads lower self-esteem
individuals to covertly affiliate with envied others.
Results also support hypothesis 3: higher self-esteem individuals increased valuation of
an envied good relative to a no-envy situation, while lower self-esteem individuals experiencing
envy lowered their willingness-to-pay for the good relative to a no-envy context. These results
qualify findings on malicious envy. Van de Ven et al. (2010, study 3) find that consumers
experiencing malicious envy show a lower willingness to pay for envied products. Our findings
replicate this finding among lower self-esteem consumers, but show that the effect is in fact
reversed for higher self-esteem consumers.
Study 2 replicates and extends our findings from study 1 using a different consumption
outcome and population. Most importantly, study 2 manipulates the nature of the harming
opportunity presented to participants, in order to provide a full test of hypotheses 1-3.
STUDY 2
Firms often use contests to increase consumer engagement, commonly establishing
forums for consumers to communicate regarding other submissions (i.e., Lay’s “Lay’s Do Us a
Flavor” 2012; Nieman Marcus “The Art of Fashion” 2013). Winners of these promotions are
19
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
20
often publicly recognized, rewarded, and integrated into later marketing communications. Given
that only few consumers are able to win, envy among other participants is a realistic possibility.
Study 2 adopts this context for study. In this experiment, all participants took part in a
“photo captioning contest,” evaluated other participants’ captions, and had opportunities to either
express their envy covertly or overtly. As this envy context involves achievement on a task
rather than envied products, Study 2 examines valuation of the envied outcome (i.e., winning) by
considering participants’ motivation to take part in future similar contests.
Method
Pretest. A total of 94 participants recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk panel
(Mage = 33 years, 48% female) read that they would be taking part in a photo-captioning contest.
Participants would both write their own captions and see some other contestants’ captions. Also,
in addition to receiving their $1.00 payment for participation, participants were told that $20
bonuses would be given to the top five captions based on other participants’ evaluations. In
addition, $2.00 bonuses would be randomly award to 20 participants.
Participants then viewed a photo that depicted two puppies looking at cupcakes (appendix
A). They were then given three minutes to write their own caption. On completion, participants
viewed three captions presumably written by other participants. The first caption (caption one)
always constituted the target “other” in this experiment. In the envy conditions, this caption was
flagged as a winner of the randomly-awarded $20.00 award, while captions two and three were
not. In the control condition, none of the captions were flagged as winners. The experiment was
presumably completed at this point, and participants were told that they would receive their
bonus through the Amazon Mechanical Turk system if they were selected as winners. They were
20
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
21
then asked to complete an emotional inventory as part of a separate study, using a subset of the
emotions captured in study 1. After the survey was completed, five participants were given $20
bonuses, and 20 participants received $2 bonuses, consistent with the pre-test instructions.
Means, standard deviations and significance tests for the emotional inventory items are captured
in table 4. As can be seen, only envy was significantly higher when the first caption was
designated as winner. Thus, we will follow this method to induce envy in our main experiment.
Insert Table 4 about here
Main Experiment. Study 2 followed a 2 (envy versus control session) x 2 (harming
opportunity: covert versus overt) x continuous measure (self-esteem) between-participants
design. 175 participants from an online sample (Mage = 32.5 years, 64% female) completed the
study for a nominal payment in addition to prize payments discussed below.
The main study method followed the pretested procedure. However, rather than simply
viewing the captions used in the pretest, participants evaluated them in terms of their
humorousness, where the first was designated as a winner (envy condition) or not (control
condition). Since some merit-based awards were presumably based on respondents’ evaluations
of others’ captions, caption one’s evaluation provides our focal measure of harming behavior.
Ratings of captions two and three allow us to control for overall evaluation tendencies and to
ensure that the effects we capture are specific to the envied individual. An additional harming
measure was also taken: after evaluating these captions, participants assessed the extent to which
they felt that the individual who wrote each caption should be considered for hire as a
professional caption writer from 1 (definitely no) to 7 (definitely yes). Recommendations to hire
21
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
22
writers of caption two and three on the same scale allow us to see if effects are specific to the
target.
We manipulated the nature of the harming opportunity between-subjects. In the overt
conditions, participants were told that the caption writer might contact them for more detailed
feedback both on their evaluation and hiring recommendation and their ID would be listed next
to their feedback. In the covert conditions, they were told that all evaluations and hiring
recommendations would be anonymous. Valuation of the envied outcome was gauged by asking
participants to state the extent to which they would be likely to participate in contests in the
future using the same scale.
Participants then completed a filler task consisting of rating a number of photographs in
terms of their enjoyment, attractiveness, and ease of writing a caption, each captured on 1 (not at
all) to 5 (very much) scales. This task took approximately 10 minutes. Finally, participants
completed the Rosenberg self-esteem scale (1979). They were then told that due to regulations,
none of them would be contacted by caption writers. After all participants had finished, all
participants were awarded $2.00 bonuses. The $20.00 awards were also randomly awarded to
five study participants.
Analysis and Results
Self-esteem was mean-centered (M = 2.87, SD = .64) and overt/covert harming condition
and envy/control condition were contrast coded as -1 and 1, respectively, in all analyses.
Interactions were analyzed using the same analysis techniques as in study 1; simple effects tests
are reported first, followed by main effects tests.
22
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
23
Harming behaviors. We used the harming condition (overt or covert), envy/control
condition, and self-esteem to predict participants’ evaluations of the humorousness of the target
caption and hiring recommendations.
Evaluations and hiring recommendations did not differ for the second and third captions
in any conditions or based on self-esteem, or on any two or three-way interactions of the factors
(all p’s > .1). To control for general evaluative tendencies, we averaged each individual’s scores
for captions two and three (r = .6, p < .001) and used the average as a covariate in the analysis of
the humorousness of caption one (M = 4.76). As expected, evaluation tendencies on the nontarget captions predicted evaluations of the target caption (b = .27, F(1, 166) = 47.63, p < .001).
Further, when evaluations were believed to be overt, they were generally more positive than
when they were believed to be covert (b = .60, F(1, 166) = 11.50, p < .01). This difference was
larger when individuals had higher as opposed to lower self-esteem (F(1, 166) = 5.04, p < .05).
Beyond these effects, we see a significant three-way interaction of harming condition,
envy/control condition, and self-esteem (b = .27, F(1, 166) = 10.65, p < .01).
This three-way interaction is driven by significant two-way interactions in both the covert
(b = -1.60, F(1, 84) = 6.66, p = .01), and overt (b = 1.26, F(1, 81) = 3.98, p = .05), conditions,
but consistent with hypotheses 1 and 2, the interactions suggest inverse patterns. In the covert
condition, floodlight analysis shows that the negative simple effect of envy on evaluation of the
caption becomes significant at .37 (.58 SD) above the mean value of self-esteem. (BJN = -.32, SE
= .16, p = .05). These findings conceptually replicate results from study 1: higher self-esteem
individuals show more negative covert evaluations of a “winning” other when they experience
envy than when they do not. When harming behavior was overt, we see a marginal negative
effect of envy on caption ratings when self-esteem is at or below 1.60 (or -2.5 SDs) below the
23
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
24
mean (BJN = -1.97, SE = 1.19, p = .10). That is, at very low levels of self-esteem, individuals
showed lower evaluations of a “winner’s” work than the same caption, not labeled as a winner.
Further, regression analyses provide insight into main effects of self-esteem within selfenvy v. control conditions. We note that in both overt and covert control conditions (where no
envy is present) self-esteem does not lead to differences in evaluation (all p’s > .18). However,
when envy is experienced, higher self-esteem is associated with marginally higher overt
evaluations (i.e., less overt harming behavior) (b = 2.12, F(1, 41) = 3.53, p =.07) and
significantly lower evaluations (i.e., more covert harming behavior) (b = -2.76; F (1,43) = 13.32,
p = .0007).
Patterns more fully consistent with hypothesis 2 were found for recommendation to hire
the caption writers, our second measure of harming behavior. Controlling for tendencies to
recommend non-target caption writers for a job (M = 4.22, b = .28, F(1, 166) = 48.05, p < .01),
we observe a three-way interaction of harming condition, envy/control condition, and selfesteem (b = -1.58, F(1, 166) = 13.70, p < .01). When responses were covert, envy had a
significant negative simple effect at or above .37 (.58 SDs) above the mean level of self-esteem
(BJN = -.33, SE = .17, p = .05), consistent with hypothesis 1. However, when responses were
overt, this pattern is reversed, such that envy lowered individuals’ recommendations to hire the
envied caption writer at or below .09 (-.14 SDs) the mean value of self-esteem (BJN = -.58, SE =
.29, p = .05), consistent with hypothesis 2.
Finally, regression analyses again show no main effects of self-esteem in either overt or
covert control groups (both p’s > .38), but again, within the envy conditions, higher self-esteem
individuals provided less positive covert (b = -2.39, F(1,43) = 9.09, p = .004) and more positive
24
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
25
overt recommendations to hire the winning caption writer than did lower self-esteem individuals
(b = 3.41, F(1, 41) = 10.96, p = .002).
Valuation of the Envied Outcome. We used the same model as above to predict likelihood
motivation to pursue the envied outcome in the future. In the full model, we observe a significant
two-way interaction of envy vs. control condition and self-esteem (b =.56, F(1, 167) = 6.14, p =
.01). Consistent with our theorization, there is no effect of the covert or overt harming
opportunity condition or an interaction with any other factors (all p > .1). Thus, the harming
opportunity condition is collapsed across for subsequent analysis.
Results were consistent with hypothesis 3. Envy prompted individuals scoring .83 above
the mean (1.30 SDs) in self-esteem to raise their likelihood to try again (BJN = .24, SE = .12, p =
.05.) However, individuals who scored .06 or more below the mean value of self-esteem (-.09
SDs) were significantly less likely to want to try again in the future than individuals in the
control conditions (BJN = -.14, SE = .07, p = .05).
Discussion
Study 2 presents the first data that harmonizes prior conflicting theory related to selfesteem under ego threat. When feedback is covert, envy leads higher self-esteem individuals
behave more negatively toward envied others than they otherwise would, whether in terms of
evaluations of their work or tendency to recommend envied others for a job. This pattern is
consistent with results in study 1, supports hypothesis 1, and aligns with prior work showing a
positive relationship between self-esteem and harming behaviors in the face of ego threat.
Though not hypothesized, also similar to study 1, envy also creates some movement in lower
self-esteem individuals’ covert behaviors: we observe a marginally-significant positive simple
25
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
26
effect of envy on covert evaluations at -.16 (.27 SD) below the mean value of self-esteem (BJN=
.53, SE = .30, p = .08) and a marginally-significant positive effect of envy on covert
recommendations-to-hire at -.17 (-.27 SDs) below the mean level of self-esteem (BJN = .53, SE =
.31, p = .09). Though these results are weak, it appears that there may be a weak tendency for
lower self-esteem individuals to covertly praise superior others when experiencing envy.
We obtain partial support for hypothesis 2 in this study. Only among the very lowest selfesteem individuals did we observe overt denigration of the winning caption, and even then, the
simple effect of envy on evaluations did not reach conventional significance levels. However,
stronger support for hypothesis 2 was observed with regard to overt recommendations to hire the
winning caption’s author: it may be that because hiring recommendations could reflect badly on
the recommender, this measure was more sensitive to lower self-esteem individuals’
presentational concerns, allowing them more license to overtly harm the envied other.
Interestingly, when feedback was overt, higher self-esteem was associated with more positive
evaluations of envied others and higher recommendations-to-hire than seen in the absence of
envy: we see a significant positive simple effect of envy on overt caption ratings when selfesteem is at or above .37 (or .58 SDs) above the mean (BJN = .52, SE = .26, p = .05) and a
significant positive effect on overt recommendations to hire the confederate at or above .75
above the mean value of self-esteem (BJN = .75, SE = .38, p = .05). Though not explicitly
hypothesized, this finding may suggest that even under malicious envy conditions, higher selfesteem individuals may still express the type of positive response to superior others previously
characterized as part of “benign” envy. Finally, study 2’s results replicate support for H3. As in
study 1, envy enhances higher self-esteem individuals’ to pursue an envied target, but detracts
from the motivation of lower self-esteem individuals.
26
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
27
To connect our findings to recent consumer envy frameworks (i.e., van de Ven et al 2009,
2010, 2011), it is necessary to consider the type of envy engendered by our method. As noted in
our discussion of the previous envy research, the focus of the present investigation is on envy
proper, or malicious envy (van de Ven et al. 2009). However, we note that recent work has
uncovered motivational and behavioral differences between malicious and benign envy (Belk
2011; van de Ven et al. 2010, 2011). Study 3 allows us to test whether our results are specific to
malicious envy, or whether they may be more general responses to situations of loss.
STUDY 3
Study 3 extends our findings from studies 1 and 2 in three ways. First, we compare our
findings to those generated in a “benign” envy situation. Second, we examine another
consumption context used in previous envy research – a desirable internship interview (similar to
the stimulus used in van de Ven et al. 2010, study 1). Further, in this study we capture a given
participant’s response to both public and private helping opportunities; failing to help publicly
thus represents an overt harm, while failing to provide helpful private information represents a
covert harm. As in studies 1 and 2, we again examine participants’ evaluations of the envied
outcome, in this case, perceptions of the company offering a desired internship.
Method
Pretest. Study 3’s pre-test again sought to ensure that our method cleanly elicited
differences in experienced envy. Because we intended to manipulate malicious envy, it was also
important to establish that the confederate’s advantage was indeed viewed by participants as
unfair in the malicious envy condition.
27
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
28
Seventy-five undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to either an envy or
control condition. They were told that a locally-headquartered international athletic clothing
company was considering offering an internship to a student from their business school. Since
the company anticipated a high degree of interest, they were preselecting four students for an
“inside track” interview with an executive from the company that would take place before
applications were solicited. This interview would allow participants to learn more about what
might make them the most attractive internship candidate, to separate themselves from the large
number of applications, and to increase their chances of obtaining the position. Participants then
read that the inside track interviews would be awarded at random, and that participants were to
retrieve an envelope taped to the bottom of their chairs, and open it. After opening their
envelope, they retrieved a note that said “Thank you for participating”. Participants in the envy
condition were told that, at that moment, a fellow participant, “Jenny,” became visibly excited.
She had obtained one of the inside track interviews. In the control condition, participants read
that no one had won an inside track interview.
Participants then completed the emotional inventory items from studies 1 and 2 and were
asked how fair they believed the inside interview selection procedure was (1 – very unfair to 7 –
very fair). Means, standard deviations and statistical tests are provided in table 5. Replicating the
pretests in studies 1 and 2, participants in the envy condition reported only higher envy and
jealousy than participants in the control condition (all other ps > .10). Moreover, participants
viewed this luck-based interview allocation process as unfair (M = 3.08, t(75) v. scale midpoint
(4) = -4.88, p < .001). This pretest suggests that our planned method will cleanly elicit envy, and
that our luck-based award will likely generate perceptions of unfairness and therefore, malicious
envy. We will use a merit-based award system to generate benign envy.
28
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
29
Insert Table 5 about here
Main Experiment. Study 3 followed a 2 (envy versus control condition) x 2 (envy type:
malicious, benign) x continuous measure (self-esteem) between-participants design. One
hundred eighty-three marketing undergraduates (Mage = 20.42 years, 60% female) from a large
public University completed the study for course credit.
Self-esteem was again collected as part of a collection of measures at the beginning of the
semester, again using the Rosenberg (1979) scale. Along with this measure, participants
provided the company name, position held and tenure of service for their last three jobs. This
information would be used in our manipulation of envy type. Approximately three weeks later,
participants came to the lab in groups of four or five, joined by one confederate in each session.
Similar to study 1, participants first introduced themselves by stating their name and
major. As in study 1, participants were introduced to “Jenny”, a second year marketing student.
After the introductions, participants returned to their individual terminals and were asked to
provide the names, majors and seat numbers of the other participants. They then completed an
unrelated task for approximately 20 minutes. After completing this study, participants were
presented with the same internship opportunity information used in the pretest.
We manipulated envy type by changing the ways in which the inside track interview was
awarded. In the benign envy condition, participants were told that the inside track winners would
be chosen based on the work experience information the students had provided during the
presurvey, as judged by the business school’s career services centre. In the malicious envy
condition, participants were told that the inside track interview winners would be randomly
29
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
30
selected, following the random procedure in the pretest and study 1 (using an envelope under a
chair to identify a winner). Thus, in the benign condition, the desired outcome was earned based
on relevant past work experience, while in the malicious condition, nothing was done to earn the
desired outcome. This manipulation conforms to the definitions of benign and malicious envy,
based on van de Ven et al.’s work (2009, 2010) showing that the perceived deservingness of the
envied other is the key factor determining whether benign or malicious envy is elicited.
As in study 1, in the envy conditions the confederate verbally expressed excitement upon
opening the envelope under her chair and finding that she had been selected for the “inside track”
interview. In the control conditions, there was not a winner in the session. After the
manipulation, all participants completed the overt and covert dependent measures, which focused
on behaviors directed towards the confederate.
Measures
Overt behavior. Our overt measure presented participants with the opportunity to coach
the winner in preparation for their interview. If they volunteered to do so, participants would
immediately identify themselves and set up an appointment to help the winner. Thus, this
opportunity was unambiguous and public. Participants reported their likelihood to help the
interview winner using a seven-point scale anchored at 1 (Very Unlikely) and 7 (Very Likely).
Covert behaviour. We collected two covert measures of helping or harming behavior.
Participants were presented with the following information:
Sometimes people can help one another by sharing things they've learned from their own
experience.
Company X would like to provide some helpful tools to individuals who were selected for
the "inside track" interviews.
30
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
31
In the spaces below, can you provide questions that you think a Company X executive
might ask individuals interviewing for this position? By providing these questions, you
may help the "inside track" interview students think about and prepare for their interview
more successfully. This will give them a better shot at getting the position than if they go
into the interview without preparation.
Note that responses to this question would allow individuals to provide help to one
another, but under cover of complete anonymity, with the quality of assistance subjectively
determined and at their own discretion. Spaces were provided for five interview questions. Two
coders, both blind to other participant information and condition, coded the questions provided
for helpfulness to the inside track interview winner. Good questions were those that were
deemed to be specific, relevant, and open-ended. Examples of good questions were: “Give us an
idea of a new product that you would want to launch for XXX's men’s fashion line,” and
“Describe a situation in which you had to work with someone that you did not get along with.
What was the outcome and how did you overcome the situation?” Examples of poor questions
were: “If you were marooned on a desert island, what three things would you bring?” and “How
many golf balls would fit in a jar?” The scale used was from 1 (poor question) to 3 (good
question). Correlation between the two raters’ scores was high (r = .97, p < .001), and
disagreements were solved through discussion. Each participant had an average quality score
computed for use as a measure of covert helping behavior.
Envied Outcome. Finally, participants provided their desire for the envied outcome,
operationalized though attractiveness rating of the company offering the internship. This measure
was composed of rating the extent to which the company offering the internship was liked,
positive, good, one of the individual’s favorites, high quality, special, successful and cool on 1
(not at all) to 7 (very) scales. These measures (alpha = .94) were averaged.
31
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
32
Analysis and Results
Participants’ scores on the Rosenberg (1979) self-esteem scale were mean-centered (M =
3.95, SD = .65). Envy type and envy condition were contrast-coded -1 (malicious), 1 (benign); -1
(control), 1 (envy) for all analyses, and interactions were again analyzed using the techniques
used in studies 1 and 2.
Covert behavior. We first used the full model (envy versus control condition, envy type,
and self-esteem) to predict the average quality of interview questions provided to participants.
Recall that these questions would not be identified by provider, and therefore, offered a covert
opportunity for participants to help the confederate. Considering the average quality of questions
as the dependent measure yields a significant three-way interaction (F(1,175) = 4.79, p < .05).
As predicted, this three-way interaction is driven by the malicious envy condition. We
first note that there were no main effects or interactive effects of our factors on question quality
when envy was benign (all p > .65). However, in the malicious condition we see an interaction of
self-esteem and envy condition (b = -.25, F(1, 175) = 5.76, p < .05). We again see no effect of
self-esteem in the control condition (b = .23, F(1,175) = 1.97, p > .17).
Consistent with hypothesis 1, floodlight analyses reveal that at self-esteem levels at or
above .82 (or 1.26 SDs above the mean value), lower-quality interview preparation questions
were covertly provided (BJN = -.21, SE = .11, t = -2.00, p = .05) when participants were
experiencing envy than when they were not. Conversely, knowing that the confederate had won
led individuals at self-esteem levels at or below .95 below (or 1.46 SDs) the mean value to
provide better-quality interview preparation questions to the confederate (BJN = .23, SE = .11, t =
2.01, p = .05). In addition, regression analysis reveals that higher self-esteem individuals
32
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
33
experiencing malicious envy tended to provide lower-quality questions than did lower selfesteem individuals (b = -.27, F(1,175) = 4.42, p < .05).
Overt behavior. We also analyzed likelihood of overtly helping the winner of the “inside
track” interview using the same model as above. This model suggests that higher self-esteem
individuals generally reported higher likelihood of publically helping a winner (b = .60, F(1,
175) = 11.71, p < .01.) We also see a significant two-way interaction of envy condition and selfesteem, such that this effect is larger when envy is generated toward a winner in the session (b =
.35, F(1, 175) = 3.86, p = .05). However, the predicted three-way interaction also emerged (b = .33, F(1, 175) = 3.55, p = .06).
This three-way interaction was again driven by different patterns in the benign and
malicious envy conditions. In the benign condition, higher self-esteem individuals are more
willing than lower self-esteem individuals to publically extend help, regardless of control or envy
manipulations (F(1, 89) = 3.84, p = .05). No other effects or interactions were significant (all p >
.10), as predicted by our model. In the malicious condition, higher self-esteem individuals were
also generally more likely to help the envied other (b = .72, F(1, 86) = 8.41, p < .01), but this
main effect was qualified by a significant two-way interaction between envy condition and selfesteem (b = .68, F(1, 86) = 7.33, p < .01). Consistent with hypothesis 2, envy leads lower selfesteem individuals (at or below .67, or 1.03 SDs below the mean value) to be less overtly helpful
to the confederate (BJN = -.45, SE = .23, t = -1.98, p = .05) than they would be if they had not
experienced envy. However, higher self-esteem individuals (at or above .64, or .98 SDs above
the mean value) show more overt helping behaviours when they experience envy than when they
do not (BJN = .43, SE = .22, t = 1.99, p =.05).
33
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
34
Valuation of the Envied Opportunity. We then analyzed the valuation of the company
offering the internship using the same model. This analysis showed that higher self-esteem
individuals tended to rate the company offering the internship more highly overall (b = .43, F(1,
175) = 8.57, p < .01). Importantly, the predicted three-way interaction emerged (b = -.35, F(1,
175) = 8.77, p = .01).
In the benign envy conditions, higher self-esteem individuals tend to rate the internship
company more highly than do lower self-esteem individuals (b = .53, F(1, 89) = 5.99, p < .05),
regardless of whether participants were in envy or control conditions (b = -.17, F(1, 89) = .65, p
> .40). No other effects were significant.
However, when envy was malicious, we see an interaction of envy versus control
condition and self-esteem (b = .52, F(1, 86) = 7.39, p < .01). Consistent with hypothesis 3, envy
led lower self-esteem individuals (at or below 1.32, or .86 SDs below the mean) to devalue the
target brand relative to a no-envy situation (BJN = -.56, SE = .28, t = -1.99, p = .05). Conversely,
envy led higher self-esteem individuals (at or above .21, or .32 SDs above the mean) to enhance
their valuation of the envied outcome (BJN = .24, SE = .12, t = 1.99, p = .05). Regression analyses
show that in the malicious envy sessions, higher self-esteem individuals also showed higher
valuation for the company associated with the envied internship than did lower self-esteem
individuals (b = .85, F(1, 45) = 7.58, p < .01). There was no difference based on self-esteem in
the corresponding control condition (b = .19, F(1, 41) = .69, p > .40).
Discussion
Study 3 replicates basic patterns of effects from studies 1 and 2, in a new context, and
with within-subjects opportunities to engage in overt and covert harming behaviors. In this
34
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
35
study, we see the effects of envy on overt and covert harming behaviors both relative to a control
condition and relative to a “benign” envy condition. We also again observe support for
hypothesis 3, such that higher self-esteem individuals preserved high perceptions of the envied
outcome, but lower self-esteem individuals tended to devalue the target.
As a whole, these results suggest that any equation of high self-esteem and graciousness
or low self-esteem and aggression in the face of envy are problematically incomplete. In fact,
subtler measures show us that envy leads high self-esteem individuals to covertly denigrate
envied individuals but to overtly affiliate with them. By contrast, envious low self-esteem
individuals put down envied others overtly, but privately tend toward affiliation. Importantly,
these effects can occur within the same encounter.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
As a whole, the present paper offers novel methodological, theoretical and substantive
advances to the prior envy literature. Rather than relying on retrospective evaluation or scenariodriven responses, three studies across different domains suggest consistent relationships between
envy, self-esteem, and expressions of envy. Of primary theoretical importance, our recognition
of prior patterns in harming behaviors allow for harmonization of past conflicts in the literature.
While higher self-esteem individuals are likely to harm envied others when doing so is covert,
they will refrain from doing so when opportunities are overt. By contrast, when lower selfesteem individuals experience envy, they will be more likely to display overt harming behaviors.
Overall, we also replicate van de Ven et al.’s finding of envied product devaluation; however, we
show that this finding may be driven by lower self-esteem individuals’ behavior. Importantly,
35
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
36
our results reveal that higher self-esteem individuals show a contrasting pattern, preserving or
increasing the value of the good even when experiencing malicious envy.
These findings thus call for care in interpreting individuals’ behaviours as inconsistent
with a definition of envy proper simply because of a failure to respond to only one type of
measure. For example, if only study 1 is considered, one might conclude that higher self-esteem
individuals are less prone to envy or experience only benign envy. Here, the experience of
lacking something held by the confederate did not appear to be accompanied by any negative
expression. However, when we broaden our analysis to consider covert responses, we see that
higher self-esteem individuals do behave in ways that comport with Cohen-Charash’s (2009) and
others’ (e.g., Miceli and Castelfranchim 2007; Smith et al. 1999; Parrott 1991) multifaceted
definition of dispositional envy (Smith et al. 1991); their expressions of ill-will are simply betterhidden than those of their lower self-esteem counterparts. We have argued that this use of covert
expressions allows higher self-esteem individuals to maintain their appearance of invulnerability
and avoid rejection by the group. However, it should not be concluded that simply because
expressions of ill will are covert, envy proper does not exist.
Our findings also call for care when using envy to motivate consumers. First, particularly
among lower self-esteem consumers, overt opportunities to harm others may lead to, at worst,
interpersonal aggression, or at least, socially-unproductive behaviors. Such behaviors may be
controlled externally, as they are more likely to be observable and thus, can be identified and
deterred. However, among higher self-esteem consumers, envy may generate covert “social
undermining.” Such acts, by their hidden nature, may be equally damaging, but much more
difficult to control and address. For individuals concerned about the well-being of a group or
society, such findings call for attention beyond the surface, suggesting that, indeed, envy can
36
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
37
cause more problems than are immediately apparent, and that it may do so among the segments
of the populace who have both the resources and ability to harm envied others in secret.
Further, marketers may only want to use envy as a means of motivating purchase when
they anticipate a high level of self-esteem among their target consumers. Given that self-esteem
has sometimes been found to correlate with income and education (e.g., Bachman and O’Malley
1977), this is not an impossible limitation for marketers to consider. However, it does suggest
that using envy when one intends to broaden their appeal to a new market requires consideration
of that market’s dominant sense of self-worth, and possibly, situational boosts to self-esteem that
make envy a motivator, at least in the limited context of a shopping encounter.
Because we study three different envy contexts and use Johnson-Neyman analyses to test
hypothesis 1 and 2, we are also able to make some observations about the effects of envy across
self-esteem levels and contexts and identify unexpected results that may warrant additional
exploration. Table 6 summarizes our moderation tests for both hypothesis 1 and 2 across all
studies. In absolute terms, we tend to see simple effects of envy either above or below the mean
value of self-esteem that are consistent with our predictions. However, the distance from the
mean that is required to see a simple effect of envy varies substantially depending on whether we
consider products, achievements or opportunities. Further, we note that standard errors are often
substantially larger among lower as opposed to higher self-esteem individuals, and that some
tests only reach marginal significance levels, particularly in study 2. This may suggest that lower
self-esteem is more erratic in its effects, or that individuals with chronically low self-esteem may
vary in their tendency to act in ways consistent with that negative self-view. It may also suggest
that study 2’s context (the photo captioning contest among online participants) generated weaker
feelings of envy than did the in-person experiments described in studies 1 and 3. Future research
37
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
38
may test whether, in fact, envy has weaker effects when related to achievements than products or
opportunities, or if these weaker effects are primarily attributable to the virtual as opposed to real
settings. In addition, results shown in italicized text highlight findings that were not explicitly
hypothesized; we had not, for example, anticipated that higher self-esteem individuals would
actually raise their evaluations of an envied other overtly. Future research may explore these
relationships, to better understand when and why they emerge.
We also note that we have used Rosenberg’s (1979) explicit global self-esteem measure
throughout this work. Use of this measure, cited over 650 times in prior literature, allows us to
make relevant contributions to existing frameworks. The decision to collect this measure
separately from the main experiment should have reduced self-presentation concerns, meaning
that our measures were more likely to capture “genuine” self-esteem (Farnham, Greenwald and
Banaji 1999). However, we acknowledge that our results should not be read as generalizable to
all measures of self-esteem. Particularly, new work highlights more subtle measures of selfesteem that capture a different theoretical construct or dimension of self-worth judgments than
does Rosenberg (1979) (Crocker and Park 2004; Jordan et al. 2003; Kernis, Grannemann and
Barclay 1989). For example, Jordan et al. (2003) found that individuals with high explicit, but
low implicit self-esteem (measured via IAT), exhibited more defensive behaviors than
individuals high in both explicit and implicit self-esteem. Kernis et al. (1989) found that hostility
scores were highest among individuals with unstable as opposed to stable high self-esteem.
Future work can fruitfully test for replication of our effects in terms of implicit or unstable selfesteem, or identify divergent patterns using these constructs as moderating factors.
38
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
39
REFERENCES
Bachman, Jerald G., and Patrick M. O'Malley (1977), "Self-Esteem in Young Men: A
Longitudinal Analysis of the Impact of Educational and Occupational Attainment,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(6), 365.
Barry, Christopher T., Paul J. Frick, and Amber L. Killian (2003). "The Relation of Narcissism
and Self-Esteem to Conduct Problems in Children: A Preliminary Investigation," Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 32(1), 139-52.
Barth, Diane F. (1988), "The Role of Self-Esteem in the Experience of Envy,", American
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 48(3), 198-210.
Battle, James (1981), Culture Free Self Esteem Inventories for Children and Adults, Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed (originally published by Special Child Publications, Seattle).
Baumeister, Roy F. (1993), Self-Esteem: The Puzzle of Low Self-Regard, New York: Plenum
Press.
Baumeister, Roy F., Laura Smart, and Joseph M. Boden (1996), "Relation of Threatened
Egotism to Violence and Aggression: The Dark side of High Self-Esteem," Psychological
Review, 103(1).
Baumeister, Roy F., Jennifer D. Campbell, Joachim I. Krueger, and Kathleen D. Vohs (2003),
"Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, or
Healthier Lifestyles?," Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1-44.
Beauregard, Keith S., and David Dunning (1998), "Turning Up the Contrast: Self-Enhancement
Motives Prompt Egocentric Contrast Effects in Social Judgments," Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74(3), 606.
Belk, Russell (2011), "Benign Envy". AMS Review, 1(3-4), 1–18.
Brigham, Nancy L., Kimberly A. Kelso, Mark A. Jackson, and Richard H. Smith (1997), "The
Roles of Invidious Comparisons and Deservingness in Sympathy and Schadenfreude,"
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 363-80.
Bushman, Brad J., and Roy F. Baumeister (1998), "Threatened Egotism, Narcissism, SelfEsteem, and Direct and Displaced Aggression: Does Self-Love or Self-Hate Lead to
Violence?," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219-29.
Bushman, Brad J., Roy F. Baumeister, Sander Thomaes, Ehri Ryu, Sander Begeer, and Stephen
G. West (2009), "Looking Again, and Harder, for a Link Between Low Self-Esteem and
Aggression," Journal of Personality, 77(2), 427-46.
Buss, Arnold H., and Mark Perry (1992), "The Aggression Questionnaire," Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452-9.
Christensen, Myra J., Robert M. Brayden, Mary S. Dietrich, F. Joseph McLaughlin, Kathryn B.
Sherrod, and William A. Altemeier (1994), "The Prospective Assessment of Self-Concept
in Neglectful and Physically Abusive Low Income Mothers," Child Abuse & Neglect,
18(3), 225-32.
Cialdini, Robert B., and Kenneth D. Richardson (1980), "Two Indirect Tactics of Image
Management: Basking and Blasting," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39(3), 406-15.
Cohen-Charash, Yochi (2009), "Episodic Envy," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9),
2128-73.
Cohen-Charash, Yochi, and Jennifer S. Mueller (2007), "Does Perceived Unfairness Exacerbate
39
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
40
or Mitigate Interpersonal Counterproductive Work Behaviors Related to Envy?," Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666-80.
Cohen-Charash, Yochi, " ", accesible online at http://www.psicosocioanalisi.it/areariservata/area-soci/cohen-charash.pdf
Coopersmith, Stanley (1981), SEI, Self-Esteem Inventories, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Crick, Nicki. R. (1996), "The Role of Overt Aggression, Relational Aggression, and Prosocial
Behavior in the Prediction of Children’s Future Social Adjustment," Child Development,
67(5), 2317–27.
Crocker, J., Leigh L. Thompson, Kathleen M. McGraw, and Cindy Ingerman (1987),
"Downward Comparison, Prejudice, and Evaluations of Others: Effects of Self-Esteem
and Threat," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 907–16.
Crocker, Jennifer, and Riia Luhtanen (1990), "Collective Self-Esteem and Ingroup Bias,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60.
Crocker, Jennifer and Lora E. Park (2004), "The Costly Pursuit of Self-Esteem," Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 392–414.
D'Souza, Dinesh (2001), The Virue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence.
New York: Free Press.
Donahue, Eileen M., Roy J. Lewicki, and J. Robinson Robert (2000), "Extending and Testing a
Five Factor Model of Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tactics: Introducing the SINS
Scale," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(6), 649-64
Donnellan, M. Brent, Kali H. Trzesniewski, Richard W. Robins, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Avshalom
Caspi (2005), "Low Self-Esteem is Related to Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and
Delinquency," Psychological Science, 16(4), 328-35.
Duffy, Michelle K., and Jason D. Shaw (2000), "The Salieri Syndrome Consequences of Envy in
Groups," Small Group Research, 31(1), 3-23.
Duffy, Michelle K., Daniel C. Ganster, and Milan Pagon (2002), "Social Undermining in the
Workplace," Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 331-51.
Duffy, Michelle K., Kristin L. Scott, Jason D. Shaw, Bennett J. Tepper, and Karl Aquino (2012),
"A Social Context Model of Envy and Social Undermining," Academy of Management
Journal, 55(3), 643-66.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton (1985), Explaining Delinquency and
Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Elliott, Delbert S., and David Huizinga (1989), Improving Self-Reported Measures of
Delinquency, In Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency, 155-86.
Springer Netherlands.
Farnham, Shelly D., Anthony G. Greenwald, Mahzarin R. Banaji (1999), "Implicit Self-Esteem,"
in D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.) Social identity and social cognition, 230–48, Oxford,
England: Blackwell Publishers.
Feather, N. T., and Rebecca Sherman (2002), "Envy, Resentment, Schadenfreude, and
Sympathy: Reactions to Deserved and Undeserved Achievement and Subsequent
Failure," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 953-61.
40
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
41
Feldman, Jack M. and John G. Lynch (1988), “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of
Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73(3), 421-35.
Fergusson, David M., and L. John Horwood (2002), "Male and Female Offending Trajectories,"
Development and Psychopathology, 14(1), 159-77.
Ferris, D. Lance, Douglas J. Brown, Huiwen Lian, and Lisa M. Keeping (2008), "When Does
Self-Esteem Relate to Deviant Behavior? The Role of Contingencies of Self-Worth,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1345.
Ferris, D. Lance, Jeffrey R. Spence, Douglas J. Brown, and Daniel Heller (2012), "Interpersonal
Injustice and Workplace Deviance The Role of Esteem Threat," Journal of Management,
38(6), 1788-811.
Fox, Shaul, Zeev Ben-Nahum, and Yoel Yinon (1989), "Perceived Similarity and Accuracy of
Peer Ratings," Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 781.
Garcia, Stephen M., Hyunjin Song, and Abraham Tesser (2010), "Tainted Recommendations:
The Social Comparison Bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
113(2), 97-101.
Greenberg, Jeff, Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, Abram Rosenblatt, John Burling, Deborah
Lyon, Linda Simon, and Elizabeth Pinel (1992), "Why Do People Need Self-Esteem?
Converging Evidence That Self-Esteem Serves an Anxiety-Buffering Function," Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 913.
Heatherton, Todd F., and Kathleen D. Vohs (2000), "Interpersonal Evaluations Following
Threats to Self: The Role of Self-Esteem," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(4), 725-36.
Heider, Fritz (1958), "The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations," New York: Wiley.
Johnson, Camille (2012), "Behavioral Responses to Threatening Social Comparisons: From
Dastardly Deeds to Rising Above," Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(7)
515-524.
Jordan, Christian H., Steven J. Spencer, Mark P. Zanna, Etsuko Hoshino-Browne, and Joshua
Correll (2003), "Secure and Defensive High Self-Esteem," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85(5), 969-78.
Joubert, Charles E. (1991), "Self-esteem and Social Desirability in Relation to College Students’
Retrospective Perceptions of Parental Fairness and Disciplinary Practices," Psychological
Reports, 69(1), 115-20.
Lavender, Paige, "Mitt Romney: Questions about Wall Street, Income Inequality are Driven by
'Envy'," The Huffington Post, accessible online at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/mitt-romney-envy-south-carolinaprimary_n_1200454.html.
Luhtanen, Riia, and Jennifer Crocker (1992), "A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-Evaluation
of One's Social Identity," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-18.
Kernis, Michael H., Bruce D. Grannemann, and Lynda C. Barclay (1989), "Stability and Level of
Self-Esteem as Predictors of Anger Arousal and Hostility," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 56(6), 1013.
41
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
42
Kirkpatrick, Lee A., Christian E. Waugh, Alelhie Valencia, and Gregory D. Webster (2002),
"The Functional Domain Specificity of Self-Esteem and the Differential Prediction of
Aggression," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 756.
Manucia, Gloria K., Donald J. Baumann, and Robert B. Cialdini (1984), "Mood Influences on
Helping: Direct Effects or Side Effects," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46(2), 357-64.
McAvity, Ian (2012), "Class Warfare - The Politics of Envy in 2012," Real Clear Politics,
accessible online at:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/25/class_warfare__the_politics_of_envy_in_2012_112905.html.
Miceli, Maria and Cristiano Castelfranchi (2007), "The Envious Mind," Cognition and Emotion,
21(3), 449-79.
Mohr, Gina S., Donald R. Lichtenstein, and Chris Janiszewski (2012), "The Effect of MarketerSuggested Serving Size on Consumer Responses: The Unintended Consequences of
Consumer Attention to Calorie Information," Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 59-75.
Moorman, Robert H (1991), "Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-55.
Moran, Simone, and Maurice E. Schweitzer (2008), "When Better is Worse: Envy and the Use of
Deception," Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(1), 3-29.
Murphy, Christopher M., Steven Stosny, and Tanya M. Morrel (2005), "Change in Self-Esteem
and Physical Aggression During Treatment For Partner Violent Men," Journal of Family
Violence, 20(4), 201-10.
Novaco, Raymond W. (1975), Anger Control: The Development and Evaluation of an
Experimental Treatment, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Oates, R. Kim and Douglas Forrest (1985), "Self-Esteem and Early Background of Abusive
Mothers," Child Abuse & Neglect, 9(1), 89-93.
Papps, Benjamin P., and Ronan E. O'Carroll (1998), "Extremes of Self-Esteem and Narcissism
and the Experience and Expression of Anger and Aggression," Aggressive Behavior,
24(6), 421-38.
Parks, Craig D., Ann C. Rumble, and Donelle C. Posey (2002), "The Effects of Envy on
Reciprocation in a Social Dilemma," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4)
509-20.
Parrott, W. Gerrod (1991), "The Emotional Experiences of Envy and Jealousy," In. Salovy (Ed.)
The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy, Guilford Press. 3-30.
Parrott, W. Gerrod and Richard H. Smith (1993), "Distinguishing the Experiences of Envy and
Jealousy," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906-20.
42
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
43
Pelham, Brett W., and William B. Swann (1989), "From Self-Conceptions to Self-Worth: On the
Sources and Structure of Global Self-Esteem," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57(4), 672-80.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., Maria Bartini, and Fred Brooks (1999), "School Bullies, Victims, and
Aggressive Victims: Factors Relating to Group Affiliation and Victimization in Early
Adolescence," Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 216.
Pierce Jon. L., Donald G. Gardner, Larry L. Cummings, and Randall B. Dunham (1989),
"Organizational-Based Self-Esteem: Construct Definition, Measurement, and
Validation," Academy of Management Journal, 32, 622-48.
Quay Herbert C., and Donald Robert Peterson (1987), Manual for the Behavior Problem
Checklist, Miami, FL: Author.
Reynolds, Cecil R (1992), Behavior Assessment System for Children, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rodriguez Mosquera, Patricia M., W. Gerrod Parrott, and Alejandra Hurtado de Mendoza
(2010), "I Fear Your Envy, I Rejoice in Your Coveting: On the Ambivalent Experience
of Being Envied by Others." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 84254.
Roid, Gail H., and William Howard Fitts (1988), Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (TSCS): Revised
Manual. Western Psychological Services.
Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
——— (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenberg, Morris, Carmi Schooler, and Carrie Schoenbach (1989), "Self-Esteem and
Adolescent Problems: Modeling Reciprocal Effects," American Sociological Review,
1004-18.
Roseman, Ira J (1996), "Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and
Comprehensive Theory," Cognition & Emotion, 10(3), 241-78.
Rsin, Steven, and Steven J. Spencer (1997), "Prejudice as Self-Image Maintenance: Affirming
the Self Through Derogating Others," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73(1), 31-44.
Rutter, Michael, Jack Tizard, and Kingsley Whitmore (1970), Education, Health and Behaviour,
Longman Publishing Group.
Salovey, Peter, and Judith Rodin (1988), "Coping With Envy and Jealousy," Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 7(1), 15-33.
Salovey, Peter and Judith Rodin (1991), "Provoking Jealousy and Envy: Domain Relevance and
Self-Esteem Threat," Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 395-412.
Schimmel, Solomon (1993), Seven Deadly Sins. New York: Bantam Doubleday.
43
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
44
Schaubroeck, John, and Simon SK Lam (2004), "Comparing Lots Before and After: Promotion
Rejectees' Invidious Reactions to Promotees," Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 94(1) 33-47.
Shaffer, David, Prudence Fisher, Mina K. Dulcan, Mark Davies, John Piacentini, Mary E.
Schwab-Stone, Benjamin B. Lahey et al (1996), "The NIMH Diagnostic Interview
Schedule for Children Version 2.3 (DISC-2.3): Description, Acceptability, Prevalence
Rates, and Performance in the MECA study," Journal of the American Academy of Child
& Adolescent Psychiatry, 35(7), 865-77.
Silver, Maury and John Sabini (1978), "The Perception of Envy," Social Psychology, 41(2), 10517.
Smith, Richard H., Sung Hee Kim, and W. Gerrod Parrott (1988), "Envy and Jealousy Semantic
Problems and Experiential Distinctions," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
14(2), 401-9.
Smith, Richard H., W. Gerrod Parrott, Daniel Ozer, and Andrew Moniz (1994), "Subjective
Injustice and Inferiority as Predictors of Hostile and Depressive Feelings in Envy,"
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 705-11.
Smith, Richard H., W. Gerrod Parrott, Edward F. Diener, Rick H. Hoyle, and Sung Hee Kim
(1999), "Dispositional Envy," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 100720.
Smith, Richard. H. and Sung Hee Kim (2007), "Comprehending Envy," Psychological Bulletin,
133(1), 46-64.
Spielberger, Charles D., Ernest H. Johnson, Stephen F. Russell, Rosario J. Crane, Gerard A.
Jacobs, and Timothy J. Worden (1985), "The Experience and Expression of Anger:
Construction and Validation of an Anger Expression Scale," Anger and Hostility in
Cardiovascular and Behavioral Disorders, 5-30.
Spiller, Stephen, Gavan Fitzsimons, John Lynch, and Gary McClelland (2013), "Spotlights,
Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated
Regression," Journal of Marketing Research.
Sprott, Jane B., and Anthony N. Doob (2000), "Bad, Sad, and Rejected: The Lives of Aggressive
Children," Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 123.
Statistics Canada (1988), National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth: Users Handbook
and Microdata Guide, Cycle 1, Release 2. Ottawa: Human Resources Development
Canada.
Straus, Murray A (1979), "Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics
(CT) Scales," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75-88.
Swann Jr., William B., Peter J. Rentfrow, and Jennifer S. Guinn (2003), "Self-Verification: The
Search for Coherence," Handbook of Self and Identity, 367-83.
Tesser, Abraham, Murray Millar, and Janet Moore (1988), "Some Affective Consequences of
44
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
45
Social Comparison and Reflection Processes: The Pain and Pleasure of Being Close,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 49-61.
Tai, Kenneth, Jayanth Narayanan, and Daniel J. McAllister (2012), "Envy as Pain: Rethinking
the Nature of Envy and its Implications for Employees and Organizations," Academy of
Management Review, 37(1), 107-29.
van de Ven, Niels, Marcel Zeelenberg and Rik Pieters (2009), "Leveling Up and Down: The
Experiences of Benign and Malicious Envy," Emotion, 9(3), 419-29.
——— (2010), "Warding Off the Evil Eye: When the Fear of Being Envied Increases Prosocial
Behavior," Psychological Science, 21, 1671–77.
——— (2011), "The Envy Premium in Product Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research,
37(6), 984-98.
——— (2012), "Appraisal Patterns of Envy and Related Emotions," Motivation and Emotion,
36(2), 195-204.
Vecchio, Robert P. (2005), “Explorations in Employee Envy: Feeling Envious and Feeling
Envied,” Cognition and Emotion, 19(1), 69-81.
Wood, Joanne V., Maria Giordano-Beech, Kathryn L. Taylor, John L. Michela, and Valerie Gaus
(1994), "Strategies of Social Comparison Among People With Low Self-Esteem: SelfProtection and Self-Enhancement," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4),
713.
45
Table 1
Key Envy Research
Individual Differences
Tested
Authors
Envy Induction
Experimental Design
DV
Silver and Sabini (1978)
Video Scenario
Experimental
Feelings toward scenario character (open response)
no
Barth (1988)
Interview Assessment
Case Study Interview
Conceptual paper, no DVs
no
Salovey and Rodin (1988)
Multiple Scenarios
Correlational
Coping strategies
no
Smith, Kim and Parrott
(1988)
Recall experience
Experimental
Choice of envy or jealousy in response to affective items.
no
Parrott and Smith (1993)
Recall experience (S1), Scenario (S2)
Factor Analysis,
Correlational
Emotional outcomes (i.e., anger, longing, ill will)
No
Recall experience
Correlational
Hostile, depressive feelings; Objective, subjective injustice
No
Video Manipulation
Experimental
Schadenfreude, sympathy
No
Smith, Parrott, Diener,
Hoyle and Kim (1999)
S1-S3 - Dispositional Envy Scale; S4
- Video Scenario Manipulation
Factor Analysis,
Correlational
Dispositional Envy Scale; Self-reported envy and jealousy
Duffy and Shaw (2000)
Measured (Vecchio 1995)
Correlational, Longitudinal
Study
Group Outcomes (i.e., Performance, absenteeism, satisfaction)
No
Feather and Sherman
(2002)
Scenario
Experimental
Affect Variables (Schadenfreude, sympathy, anger); Other
Variables (deservingness and responsibility for failure,
friendly)
No
Dispositional Envy Scale (S2)
Experimental
Cooperation (S1, S2), Anger (S2)
No
Dispositional Envy Scale
Correlational
Accountability (Fox, Ben-Nahum, and Yinon 1989),
Promotion expectation (Moorman 1991)
No
Vecchio (2005)
Measured (envy of others, feelings of
being envied)
Correlational
Job satisfaction, longevity
Cohen-Charash and
Mueller (2007)
Recall experience
Correlational
Covert Harming Behaviors
Self-Esteem
Smith and Kim (2007)
Conceptual paper
Theory
Conceptual paper, no DVs
No
Moran and Schweitzer
(2008)
Recall experience (S1), Experimental
Pre-test (S2)
Experimental
Deception measure: 8-item Self-Reported Inappropriate
Negotiation Strategies, Donahue et al. 2000 (S1), Ultimatum
game (whether SS were honest about the total pot, and total $
of their offer)
Smith, Parrott, Ozer and
Moniz (1994)
Brigham, Kelso, Jackson
and Smith (1997)
Parks, Rumble and Posey
(2002)
Schaubroeck and Lam
(2004)
Self-Esteem,
Dispositional Jealousy
and Envy
Self-Esteem,
Machiavellianism
Gender
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
47
Individual Differences
Tested
Authors
Envy Induction
Experimental Design
DV
Van de Ven, Zeelenberg
and Pieters (2009)
Recall experience
Correlational/Factor
Analysis
Experiential content (i.e. feelings, thoughts, action tendencies,
actions, motivational goals)
No
Cohen-Charash (2009)
Recall experience
Correlational/Factor
Analysis
Episodic Envy Scale; S1-S3 - Emotional Reactions (i.e.
objective and subjective unfairness), S3 - Behavioral
Outcomes (i.e. Work harder to improve my performance;
provide incorrect information to mislead 'X')
No
van de Ven, Zeelenberg
and Pieters (2010)
Scenario, Video Manipulation
Experimental
WTP for envied and competitor products
van de Ven, Zeelenberg
and Pieters (2010)
Manipulation ($5 bonus awarded to
partner or not, S1)
Experimental
S1, S2 - Providing help to partner on MC questions; S3 Helping to pick up fallen papers
Rodriguez Mosquera,
Parrott and Hurtado de
Mendoza (2010)
Recall experience (S1); Scenario (S2)
Content Analysis,
Correlational
Appraisals of positive and negative aspects of the situation,
Positive and negative emotions, Coping strategies.
van de Ven, Zeelenberg
and Pieters (2011)
Recall experience
Experimental
Effort: intention to study (S1), Remote Association Task
(measures motivation, number of correct answers)
No
Duffy, Scott, Shaw,
Tepper and Aquino (2012)
Measured (Vecchio 1995)
Correlational
Social Undermining (Duffy et al 2002)
No
van de Ven, Zeelenberg
and Pieters (2012)
Recall experience (S1), Scenario (S2)
Experimental
S1 - Appraisal dimension of emotions (Roseman et al. 1996);
S2 - Measures of benign & malicious envy
No
Tai, Narayanan and
McAllister (2012)
Envy not elicited
Conceptual paper
No DVs, conceptual paper
Johnson (2012)
Conceptual paper
Theory
Conceptual paper, no DVs. Propose that malicious envy leads
to harming behaviors
INCOM
No
Cultural values
(individualism/
collectivism),
Dispositional Envy
Proposed: Self-esteem,
Self-efficacy, Locus of
Control, Neuroticism
No
47
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
48
Table 2
Key Self-Esteem and Harming Behavior Research
Harming
Behavior
(Overt/Covert)
Who Harms?
SE Index (i.e. mothers desire for child
to be similar, relationships with
others)
Overt
LSE
Child abuse, neglect, abandonment or family
discord
Crocker, Thompson,
McGraw and Ingerman
(1987)
Rosenberg (1965)
Covert
HSE
Derogation of out-group (minimal intergroup
manipulation)
Rosenberg, Schooler and
Schoenbach (1989)
Rosenberg (1965) subset
Overt
LSE
(1) School delinquent behavior index, (2)
Frequency, seriousness of delinquency (3) Theft
/vandalism index
Crocker and Luhtanen
(1990)
Christiensen, Brayden,
Dietrich, McLaughlin,
Sherrod and Altemeier
(1994)
Rosenberg (1965), Luhtanen and
Crocker Collective SE (1992)
Covert
HSE (collective)
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale (Roid
and Fitts 1988)
Overt
LSE
Rsin and Spencer (1997)
Manipulated via false feedback
Covert
High threat
Beauregard and Dunning
(S2, 1998)
Rosenberg SE scale (1965)
Covert
HSE
Papps and O'Carroll (1998)
Culture Safe SE Scale (Battle 1981)
Overt
LSE/HNarc, HSE/HNarc
Bushman and Baumeister
(1998)
Rosenberg SE scale (1965)
Covert
HSE, High narcissists after
provocation
Authors
Self-Esteem Measurement
Oates and Forrest (1985)
Sprott and Doob (2000)
Child Self-Report (i.e. "I don't feel as
happy as other children", "I feel
miserable")
Overt
LSE
Kirkpatrick, Waugh,
Valencia and Webster
(2002)
Rosenberg (1965); Bushman and
Baumeister (1998, 2 items); WithinGroup Competitive SE (Pelham and
Swann 1989)
Covert
HSE after negative feedback
DV
Derogation of out-group
Neglect (abandonment, failure to provide
nutrition/shelter), Physical Abuse (pushing, shaking,
hitting with hand)
Personality and job qualification ratings; stereotype
ratings
Derogation (lower judgments of target's
intelligence)
Novaco Provocation Inventory (Novaco 1975), State
Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger et al.
1985).
White noise sent to anonymous partner
Conduct disorder/physical aggression 6-item scale
(Statistics Canada 1998). Scale: 0-no physical
aggression to 12-high physical aggression. (i.e.
"Would you say that [Name of child] gets into many
fights?"; "Would you say that [Name of child]
physically attacks people?")
Amount of hot sauce allocated to anonomous
partner.
48
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
Authors
Self-Esteem Measurement
Harming
Behavior
(Overt/Covert)
49
Who Harms?
DV
Self- Report Delinquency Instrument (Elliott and
Huizinga 1989), i.e.: property or violent offense.
Property offenses included vandalism, breaking and
entering, vehicle theft, shop- lifting, and other theft;
violent offenses included assault, fighting, using a
weapon, physical coercion, and cruelty to animals
Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children–
Version 4 (DISC–4; Shaffer et al. 1996); i.e.:
publically-observable behaviors such as truancy,
physical cruelty to people or animals and loud,
rowdy or unruly behavior in public
Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus 1979): i.e., "Tried to
control the partner physically"
Fergusson and Horwood
(2002)
Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory
(1981)
Overt
LSE
Barry, Frick and Killian
(2003
The Self-Esteem subscale of the
Behavioral Assessment System for
Children Self-Report of Personality
(Reynolds 1992)
Overt
LSE
Murphy, Stosny and
Morrel (2005)
Rosenberg (1965)
Overt
LSE
Donnellan, Trzesniewski,
Robins, Moffit and Capsi
(2005)
Rosenberg (1965); Self-Perception
Profile for Children (Harter 1985)
Overt
LSE
S1 - Delinquincy Scale (Elliott, Huizinga, and
Ageton 1985), S2 - Rutter Child Scale (Rutter,
Tizard, and Whitmore 1970), Revised Behavior
Problem Checklist (Quay and Peterson 1987), S3 Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire (1992)
Rosenberg (1965)
Covert
HSE
Covert harming behaviors (i.e. “interfere with X's
performance”, “try to sabotage X's reputation”)
Rosenberg (1965)
Covert
HSE/High narcissism
Blasting noise to anonomous partner, and giving
low grade
Manipulated - high or low standing on
domain-specific characteristic
Covert
High domain-specific SE
Choice/recommendation of threatening candidate
high in relavent comparison dimension
Duffy, Scott, Shaw, Tepper
and Aquino (2012)
Not measured
Covert
High Envy, low social identification,
high team undermining norms
Ferris, Spence, Brown and
Heller (2012)
OBSE Self-Esteem (Pierce et al.
1989)
Overt and Covert
LSE
Cohen-Charash and
Mueller (2007)
Bushman, Baumeister,
Thomaes, Ryu, Begeer and
West (2009)
Garcia, Song and Tesser
(2010)
Social Undermining (Duffy et al. 2002)
Workplace Deviance (i.e., Failed to help a coworker, refused to talk to a co-worker, withheld
work-related information from a co-worker, started
or continued a damaging or harmful rumor at work)
49
Table 3
Pre-test Results for Study 1
Emotion Index
Positive arousal index*
Shame index
Negative affect index
Envy index
Pride index
Envy Sessions
Mean (SD)
2.57 (.80)
1.63 (.75)
1.76 (.76)
3.36 (1.07)
2.46 (.81)
Control Sessions
Mean (SD)
2.19 (.76)
1.46 (.62)
1.69 (.80)
1.81 (.99)
2.13 (.83)
F-statistic (1, 35 df),
significance level
2.13, p = .15
.53, p = .47
.07, p = .79
20.58, p < .0001
1.50, p = .23
*If all emotions are considered individually rather than indexed, no significant differences are
seen between envy and control sessions.
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
51
Table 4
Pre-test Results for Study 2
Emotion
Envious
Sadness
Optimistic
Angry
Resentful
Disappointed
Tired
Happy
Envy Sessions
Mean (SD)
2.13 (1.19)
1.60 (.91)
2.84 (1.21)
1.33 (.73)
1.54 (.78)
2.33 (1.23)
2.09 (1.11)
3.00 (1.15)
Control Sessions
Mean (SD)
1.63 (.91)
1.60 (.96)
2.94 (1.24)
1.29 (.58)
1.35 (.64)
2.02 (1.14)
2.42 (1.35)
3.08 (1.22)
F-statistic (1, 92 df)
significance level
5.39, p = .02
.00, p = .98
.13, p = .72
.07, p = .80
1.67, p = .20
1.56, p = .21
1.66, p = .20
.12, p = .73
51
ENVY, SELF-ESTEEM, AND HARMING BEHAVIORS
52
Table 5
Pre-test Results for Study 3
Emotion
Envious
Sadness
Jealous
Optimistic
Angry
Resentful
Disappointed
Tired
Happy
Envy Sessions
Mean (SD)
3.86 (1.22)
3.28 (1.03)
3.72 (1.09)
2.39 (1.05)
2.94 (1.29)
2.94 (1.01)
3.86 (1.07)
3.14 (1.13)
1.86 (.83)
Control Sessions
Mean (SD)
2.28 (1.28)
2.95 (1.26)
2.28 (1.28)
2.51 (1.19)
2.82 (1.21)
2.97 (1.33)
3.69 (1.22)
2.74 (1.27)
1.95 (1.08)
F-statistic (1, 73 df)
significance level
29.8, p < .0001
1.52, p = .22
27.5, p < .0001
.23, p = .64
.19, p = .67
.01, p = .91
.40, p = .53
2.02, p = .16
.15, p = .70
52
Table 6
Summary of Significance Simple Effect Region Analyses
Study
1*
1
2
2**
2
2
2
3***
3
3
Overt/Covert
Covert
Negativity
Willingness-toPay
Covert caption
evaluation
Overt caption
evaluation
Covert
recommendation
to hire
Overt
recommendation
to hire
Motivation to
participate in
future
Covert question
quality
Overt extension
of help
Valuation of the
opportunity
HSE Effect
LSE Effect
.12, BJN = .86, SE = .44, p = .05
-.94, BJN = 1.62, SE = .94, p = .08.
HSE
significance
limit (SD)
.24
.57, BJN = 23.57, SE = 11.92, p = .05
-.55, BJN = -22.04, SE = 11.13, p = .05
1.16
-1.12
.37, BJN = -.32, SE = .16, p = .05
-.16, BJN= .53, SE = .30, p = .08
.58
.25
.37, BJN = .52, SE = .26, p = .05
-1.60, BJN = -1.97, SE = 1.19, p = .10
.58
-2.5
.37, BJN = -.33, SE = .17, p = .05
-.17, BJN = .53, SE = .31, p = .09
.58
-.27
.75, BJN = = .75, SE = .38, p = .05
-.09, BJN = -.58, SE = .29, p = .05
1.72
-.14
.83, BJN = .24, p = .12, p = .05
-.06, BJN = -.14, SE = .07, p = .05
1.30
-.09
.82, BJN = -.21, SE = .11, t = -2.00, p = .05
-.95, BJN = .23, SE = .11, t = 2.01, p = .05
1.26
-1.46
.64, BJN = .43, SE = .22, t= 1.99, p =.05
-.67, BJN = -.45, SE = .23, t= -1.98, p = .05
.98
-1.03
.21, BJN = .24, SE = .12, t = 1.99, p = .05
-.56, BJN = -.56, SE = .28, t = -1.99, p = .05
.32
-.86
NOTE: Bolded items indicate ranges where significant simple effects were hypothesized and observed.
Plain text cells indicate ranges where no significant simple effect was predicted or observed.
Italicized text cells indicate ranges where no significant simple effect was predicted, but was observed.
*Study 1 self-esteem: M = 2.14, SD = .49; **Study 2 self-esteem: M = 2.87, SD = .64; ***Study 3 self-esteem: M =3.95, SD = .65
LSE
significance
limit (SD)
-1.92