The double-edged sword of employee authenticity in coworker interactions: The moderating role of relationship duration

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00529

Abstract

Abstract:

It is generally believed that employee authenticity in the workplace helps employees to build good relationships with their coworkers. This study suggests that the effect of employee authenticity on coworker relationships is likely to be both positive and negative, and its effect depends on the relationship duration of employees and their coworkers. Based on social penetration theory and the literature of attribution, this study suggests that coworker suspicion and coworker trust are the key mediating mechanisms for employee authenticity to affect coworker relationships. To test the hypotheses of the theoretical model, two studies were conducted using a round-robin survey and an experimental method respectively. The results showed that under the condition of short relationship duration, employee authenticity triggers suspicion of coworkers while reducing coworkers’ trust, thus decreasing interpersonal help and increasing interpersonal exclusion. Under the condition of long relationship duration, employee authenticity helps to clarify coworker suspicion and enhance coworker trust, thus increasing interpersonal help and decreasing interpersonal exclusion. By introducing relationship duration as the moderator, this study found that the effect of employee authenticity on coworker relationships can be transformed from negative to positive after a sufficient period of relationship duration.

Key words: employee authenticity, coworker relationship duration, knowledge-based trust, suspicion of ulterior motives, interpersonal help, interpersonal exclusion

TANG Yipeng, JIA Rongwen, LONG Lirong, REN Zhiyu, PU Xiaoping. (2022). The double-edged sword of employee authenticity in coworker interactions: The moderating role of relationship duration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(5), 529-548.

Figures/Tables 13

References 86

[1]	Aiken L. S., & West S. G.(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
[2]	Altman I., & Taylor D.(1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt.
[3]	Altman I., Vinsel A., & Brown B. B.(1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 107- 160.
[4]	Avolio B. J., & Gardner W. L.(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
[5]	Bligh M. C., Kohles J. C., & Pillai R.(2011). Romancing leadership: Past, present, and future. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1058-1077.
[6]	Brislin R. W.(1980). Expanding the role of the interpreter to include multiple facets of intercultural communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 4, 137-148.
[7]	Casciaro T., Gino F., & Kouchaki M.(2014). The contaminating effects of building instrumental ties: How networking can make us feel dirty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 705-735.
[8]	Caza B. B., Moss S., & Vough H.(2017). From synchronizing to harmonizing: The process of authenticating multiple work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 703-745.
[9]	Cha S. E., Hewlin P. F., Roberts L. M., Buckman B. R., Leroy H., Steckler E., … Cooper D.(2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 633-671.
[10]	Cialdini R. B., Brown S. L., Lewis B. P., Luce C., & Neuberg S. L.(1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494.
[11]	Collins N. L., & Miller L. C.(1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 457-475.
[12]	DeCarlo T. E.(2005). The effects of sales message and suspicion of ulterior motives on salesperson evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 238-249.
[13]	de Jong S. B., van der Vegt G. S., & Molleman E.(2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1625-1637.
[14]	Fein S.(1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164-1184.
[15]	Fein S., Hilton J. L., & Miller D. T.(1990). Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 753-764.
[16]	Ferris D. L., Brown D. J., Berry J. W., & Lian H.(2008). The development and validation of the workplace ostracism scale. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 93, 1348-1366.
[17]	Ferris G., & Hochwarter W.(2011). Organizational politics. In S. Zedeck, H. Aguinis, W. Cascio, M. Gelfand K. Leong, & S. Parker et al. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp.435-459). Washington, DC: APA.
[18]	Flanagan J. C.(1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327-358.
[19]	Flynn F.(2003). How much should I help and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 539-553.
[20]	Furnham A., Richards S. C., & Paulhus D. L.(2013). The dark triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199-216.
[21]	Gardner R. G., Harris T. B., Li N., Kirkman B. L., Mathieu J. E.(2017). Understanding “it depends” in organizational research: A theory-based taxonomy, review, and future research agenda concerning interactive and quadratic relationships. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 610-638.
[22]	Gelfand M. J., Raver J. L., Nishii L., Leslie L. M., Lun J., Lim B. C. … Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332, 1100-1104.
[23]	Gill C., & Caza A.(2018). An investigation of authentic leadership’s individual and group influences on follower responses. Journal of Management, 44, 530-554.
[24]	Grandey A. A., & Gabriel A. S.(2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 323-349.
[25]	Grant A. M., & Mayer D. M.(2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900-912.
[26]	Greene K., Derlega V. J., & Mathews A.(2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp.409-427). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[27]	Grodal S., Nelson A. J., & Siino R. M.(2015). Help-seeking and help-giving as an organizational routine: Continual engagement in innovative work. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 136-168.
[28]	Halbesleben J. R., & Wheeler A. R.(2015). To invest or not? The role of coworker support and trust in daily reciprocal gain spirals of helping behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1628-1650.
[29]	Ham J., & Vonk R.(2011). Impressions of impression management: Evidence of spontaneous suspicion of ulterior motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 466-471.
[30]	Harrison D. A., Price K. H., & Bell M. P.(1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
[31]	Hilton J. L., Fein S., & Miller D. T.(1993). Suspicion and dispositional inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 501-512.
[32]	Ilies R., Morgeson F. P., & Nahrgang J. D.(2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373-394.
[33]	Jones D. N., & Paulhus D. L.(2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle(Eds.), Handbook of Individual Differences in Social Behavior (pp.93-108). New York: Guilford Press.
[34]	Kay S., Mulcahy R., & Parkinson J.(2020). When less is more: The impact of macro and micro social media influencers’ disclosure. Journal of Marketing Management, 36, 248-278.
[35]	Kenny D. A.(1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[36]	Kenny D. A., Kashy D. A., & Cook W. L.(2006). Dyadic data- analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
[37]	Kenny D. A. & Wong M.-N.(2016). SRM_R: An interactive tool for estimating the Social Relations Model from directed dyadic data with round-robin-like designs [Computer software]. Available from https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/SRM_R/.
[38]	Kernis M. H.(2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self- esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 1-26.
[39]	Kernis M. H., & Goldman B. M.(2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283-357.
[40]	Koopman J., Lanaj K., & Scott B. A.(2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 414- 435.
[41]	Lam C. K., van der Vegt G. S., Walter F., & Huang X.(2011). Harming high performers: A social comparison perspective on interpersonal harming in work teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 588-601.
[42]	Lam C. K., Walter F., & Lawrence S. A.(2021). Emotion suppression and perceptions of interpersonal citizenship behavior: Faking in good faith or bad faith? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(3), 365-387.
[43]	Lee K., & Duffy M. K.(2019). A functional model of workplace envy and job performance: When do employees capitalize on envy by learning from envied targets? Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1085-1110.
[44]	Lenton A. P., Bruder M., Slabu L., & Sedikides C.(2013). How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity. Journal of Personality, 81, 276-289.
[45]	Leroy H., Anseel F., Gardner W. L., & Sels L.(2015). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management, 41, 1677-1697.
[46]	Lewicki R. J., Tomlinson E. C., & Gillespie N.(2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management, 32, 991-1022.
[47]	Lindholm C.(2009). Review: How we became authentic. Ethos, 37, 148-153.
[48]	Maheshwari S., & Mukherjee T.(2020). How strong are our weak ties? Examining the usefulness of Facebook friendship in youths' life from the social penetration theory. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 9, 29-46.
[49]	Marchand M. A. G., & Vonk R.(2005). The process of becoming suspicious of ulterior motives. Social Cognition, 23, 242-256.
[50]	McAllister D. J., Lewicki R. J., & Chaturvedi S.(2006). Trust in developing relationships: From theory to measurement. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia.
[51]	Mehra A., Kilduff M., & Brass D. J.(2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121-146.
[52]	Ménard J., & Brunet L.(2011). Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331-346.
[53]	Metin U. B., Taris T. W., Peeters M. C., van Beek I., & van den Bosch R.(2016). Authenticity at work: A job-demands resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 483-499.
[54]	Miller J. W., Stromeyer W. R., & Schwieterman M. A.(2013). Extensions of the Johnson-Neyman technique to linear models with curvilinear effects: Derivations and analytical tools. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48, 267-300.
[55]	Nagumey A. J., Reich J. W., & Newsom J.(2004). Gender moderates the effects of independence and dependence desires during the social support process. Psychology and Aging, 19, 215-218.
[56]	Neider L. L., & Schriesheim C. A.(2011). The authentic leadership inventory: Development and empirical tests. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1146-1164.
[57]	Oh H., & Kilduff M.(2008). The ripple effect of personality on social structure: Self-monitoring origins of network brokerage. Journal of Applied psychology, 93, 1155-1164.
[58]	Ouyang K., Xu E., Huang X., Liu W., & Tang Y.(2018). Reaching the limits of reciprocity in favor exchange: The effects of generous, stingy, and matched favor giving on social status. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103, 614-630.
[59]	Peets K., & Hodges E. V.(2018). Authenticity in friendships and well-being in adolescence. Social Development, 27, 140-153.
[60]	Preacher K. J., Curran P. J., & Bauer D. J.(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437-448.
[61]	Preacher K. J., Rucker D. D., & Hayes A. F.(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227.
[62]	Preacher K. J., & Selig J. P.(2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77-98.
[63]	Pugh S. D., Groth M., & Hennig-Thurau T.(2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 377-390.
[64]	Reeder G. D., Vonk R., Ronk M. J., Ham J., & Lawrence M.(2004). Dispositional attribution: Multiple inferences about motive-related traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 530-544.
[65]	Richter A. W., West M. A., van Dick R., & Dawson J. F.(2006). Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1252- 1269.
[66]	Robinson S. L., O’Reilly J., & Wang W.(2013). Invisible at work: An integrated model of workplace ostracism. Journal of Management, 39, 203-231.
[67]	Robinson S. L., & Schabram K.(2019). Workplace ostracism:What’s it good for? In S. Rudert, R. Greifeneder, & K. Williams (Eds.), Current directions in ostracism, social exclusion and rejection research(pp.155-170). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
[68]	Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., & Camerer C.(1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.
[69]	Sheldon K. M., Ryan R. M., Rawsthorne L. J., & Ilardi B.(1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.
[70]	Swann W. B.,Jr., de la Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G.(1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 857-869.
[71]	Tang Y., Lam C. K., Ouyang K., Huang X., & Tse H. H. M.(2021). Comparisons draw us close: The influence of leader-member exchange dyadic comparison on coworker exchange. Personnel Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12465
[72]	Tang Y., Xu E., Huang X., & Pu X.(2021). When can display of authenticity at work facilitate coworker interactions? The moderating effect of perception of organizational politics. Human Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872672110 31834
[73]	Taylor D., & Altman I.(1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships:Social penetration processes. In M. E.Roloff & G. R. Miller(Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research(pp.257-277). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[74]	Ting-Toomey S.(2005). The matrix of face:An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B.Gudykunst(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp.71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[75]	Tsui A. S., Egan T. D., & O’Reilly C. A.(1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579.
[76]	Twenge J. M., Campbell S. M., Hoffman B. J., & Lance C. E.(2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142.
[77]	van Dyne L., Gummings L. L., & McLean Parks J.(1995). Extra-role behaviors:In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(pp.215-285). Greenwich, GT: JAI Press.
[78]	Walumbwa F. O., Avolio B. J., Gardner W. L., Wernsing T. S., & Peterson S. J.(2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89- 126.
[79]	Warner R. M., Kenny D. A., & Stoto M.(1979). A new round robin analysis of variance for social interaction data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1742-1757.
[80]	Wickham R. E.(2013). Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 878-887.
[81]	Wood A. M., Linley P. A., Maltby J., Baliousis M., & Joseph S.(2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385-399.
[82]	Wooten D. B.(2009). Say the right thing: Apologies, reputability, and punishment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 225-235.
[83]	Wright T. A., & Sweeney D. A.(2016). The call for an increased role of replication, extension, and mixed-methods study designs in organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 480-486.
[84]	Xu E., Huang X., Jia R., Xu J., Liu W., Graham L., & Snape E.(2020). The “evil pleasure”: Abusive supervision and third-party observers’ malicious reactions toward victims. Organization Science, 31, 1115-1137.
[85]	Yagil D., & Medler-Liraz H.(2013). Moments of truth: Examining transient authenticity and identity in service encounters. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 473-497.
[86]	Zhang X., & Zhou J.(2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 150-164.

Model	χ²(df)	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR_between	SRMR_within
Five-factor model	491.4 (183)		0.94	0.93	0.04	0.09	0.02
Alternative model
Combine coworker suspicion and interpersonal exclusion	2125.6 (185)	1634.1 (2) ^***	0.6 5	0.59	0.10	0.09	0.18
Combine interpersonal exclusion and interpersonal help	3445.4 (185)	2954.0 (2) ^***	0.41	0.31	0.13	0.09	0.29
Combine dyadic level factors	4312.5 (186)	3821.1 (3) ^***	0.26	0.13	0.15	0.09	0.33
Combine individual level factors	558.7 (184)	67.3 (1) ^***	0.93	0.92	0.05	0.10	0.02
Two-factor model	4344.5 (187)	3853.1 (4) ^***	0.25	0.13	0.15	0.10	0.33

Model	χ²(df)	Δχ²(Δdf)	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR_between	SRMR_within
Five-factor model	491.4 (183)		0.94	0.93	0.04	0.09	0.02
Alternative model
Combine coworker suspicion and interpersonal exclusion	2125.6 (185)	1634.1 (2) ^***	0.6 5	0.59	0.10	0.09	0.18
Combine interpersonal exclusion and interpersonal help	3445.4 (185)	2954.0 (2) ^***	0.41	0.31	0.13	0.09	0.29
Combine dyadic level factors	4312.5 (186)	3821.1 (3) ^***	0.26	0.13	0.15	0.09	0.33
Combine individual level factors	558.7 (184)	67.3 (1) ^***	0.93	0.92	0.05	0.10	0.02
Two-factor model	4344.5 (187)	3853.1 (4) ^***	0.25	0.13	0.15	0.10	0.33

Variable		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1	Age of A (individual level)	34.39	7.46
2	Gender of A (individual level)	44.8%	0.498	-0.15^**
3	A's educational background (individual level)	78.6%	0.411	-0.20^**	-0.01
4	A's working years (individual level)	9.18	6.96	0.78^**	-0.07^*	-0.18^**
5	B's age (individual level)	34.39	7.46	0.33^**	-0.12^**	-0.06^*	0.27^**
6	Gender of B (individual level)	44.8%	0.498	-0.07^*	0.38^**	-0.08^*	-0.04	-0.15^**
7	B's educational background (individual level)	78.6%	0.411	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.33^**	-0.06	-0.18^**	0.00
8	B's working years (individual level)	9.18	6.96	0.28^**	-0.07^*	-0.05	0.23^**	0.78^**	-0.08^*	-0.20^**
9	Team Size (Team Level)	5.60	2.82	0.20^**	-0.16^**	-0.06	0.21^**	0.22^**	-0.14^**	-0.06^*	0.24^**
10	B's desire for independence (Individual Level)	6.05	0.79	-0.02	0.02	-0.04	-0.00	-0.07^*	0.15^**	-0.00	-0.02	-0.01	(0.75)
11	A's authenticity (individual level)	5.86	0.55	0.06^*	0.01	0.09^**	0.07^*	-0.00	-0.01	-0.01	0.01	0.04	0.01	(0.86)
12	Relationship duration of A and B (interpersonal level)	2.94	3.08	0.25^**	-0.11^**	-0.20^**	0.24^**	0.25^**	-0.09^**	-0.20^**	0.25^**	0.12^**	0.03	-0.06
13	B's suspicion of A (interpersonal level)	1.86	0.97	0.13^**	0.07^*	-0.03	0.08^*	0.11^**	-0.01	-0.04	0.04	0.00	-0.17^**	0.01	-0.01	(0.95)
14	B's Interpersonal Help to A (Interpersonal Level)	4.33	1.57	-0.02	-0.24^**	0.11^**	-0.06	0.03	-0.14^**	0.12^**	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.19^**	0.02	-0.12^**	(0.96)
15	B's Interpersonal Exclusion from A (Interpersonal Level)	1.33	0.87	0.13^**	-0.09^**	-0.05	0.12^**	0.21^**	-0.15^**	-0.12^**	0.08^**	0.08^*	-0.11^**	0.01	0.09^**	0.38^**	-0.03	(0.95)

Variable		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1	Age of A (individual level)	34.39	7.46
2	Gender of A (individual level)	44.8%	0.498	-0.15^**
3	A's educational background (individual level)	78.6%	0.411	-0.20^**	-0.01
4	A's working years (individual level)	9.18	6.96	0.78^**	-0.07^*	-0.18^**
5	B's age (individual level)	34.39	7.46	0.33^**	-0.12^**	-0.06^*	0.27^**
6	Gender of B (individual level)	44.8%	0.498	-0.07^*	0.38^**	-0.08^*	-0.04	-0.15^**
7	B's educational background (individual level)	78.6%	0.411	-0.10^**	-0.08^*	0.33^**	-0.06	-0.18^**	0.00
8	B's working years (individual level)	9.18	6.96	0.28^**	-0.07^*	-0.05	0.23^**	0.78^**	-0.08^*	-0.20^**
9	Team Size (Team Level)	5.60	2.82	0.20^**	-0.16^**	-0.06	0.21^**	0.22^**	-0.14^**	-0.06^*	0.24^**
10	B's desire for independence (Individual Level)	6.05	0.79	-0.02	0.02	-0.04	-0.00	-0.07^*	0.15^**	-0.00	-0.02	-0.01	(0.75)
11	A's authenticity (individual level)	5.86	0.55	0.06^*	0.01	0.09^**	0.07^*	-0.00	-0.01	-0.01	0.01	0.04	0.01	(0.86)
12	Relationship duration of A and B (interpersonal level)	2.94	3.08	0.25^**	-0.11^**	-0.20^**	0.24^**	0.25^**	-0.09^**	-0.20^**	0.25^**	0.12^**	0.03	-0.06
13	B's suspicion of A (interpersonal level)	1.86	0.97	0.13^**	0.07^*	-0.03	0.08^*	0.11^**	-0.01	-0.04	0.04	0.00	-0.17^**	0.01	-0.01	(0.95)
14	B's Interpersonal Help to A (Interpersonal Level)	4.33	1.57	-0.02	-0.24^**	0.11^**	-0.06	0.03	-0.14^**	0.12^**	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.19^**	0.02	-0.12^**	(0.96)
15	B's Interpersonal Exclusion from A (Interpersonal Level)	1.33	0.87	0.13^**	-0.09^**	-0.05	0.12^**	0.21^**	-0.15^**	-0.12^**	0.08^**	0.08^*	-0.11^**	0.01	0.09^**	0.38^**	-0.03	(0.95)

Source of variation	B’s suspicion of A			B’s Interpersonal Help to A			B’s Interpersonal exclusion of A
Source of variation	Valuation	Percentage	SE	Valuation	Percentage	SE	Valuation	Percentage	SE
Team	0.03	3.3%	0.05	0.23	9.3%	0.12	0.04	4.9%	0.04
Impact of A	0.05	4.4%	0.01	1.39	56.1%	0.16	0.02	2.0%	0.01
Impact of B	0.66	64.5%	0.08	0.08	3.2%	0.03	0.55	69.3%	0.06
Relationship between A and B	0.29	28.0%	0.02	0.77	31.4%	0.05	0.19	24.1%	0.01
Variance Quantity	2, 306.20			3, 254.19			1, 887.65