TY - JOUR
T1 - Envy
T2 - An Adversarial Review and Comparison of Two Competing Views
AU - Crusius, Jan
AU - Gonzalez, Manuel F.
AU - Lange, Jens
AU - Cohen-Charash, Yochi
N1 - Funding Information:
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-6084 Crusius Jan * Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Germany Gonzalez Manuel F. * Department of Psychology, Baruch College, USA The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, USA Lange Jens * Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Cohen-Charash Yochi * Department of Psychology, Baruch College, USA The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, USA Jan Crusius, Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Str. 2, Cologne, 50931, Germany. Email : [email protected] Yochi Cohen-Charash, Department of Psychology, Baruch College & the Graduate Center, The City University of New York, Box B8-215, 55 Lexington Ave, New York, NY 10010, USA. Email : [email protected] * All authors contributed equally to the writing of this article. 10 2019 1754073919873131 © The Author(s) 2019 2019 ISRE and SAGE The nature of envy has recently been the subject of a heated debate. Some researchers see envy as a complex, yet unitary construct that despite being hostile in nature can lead to both hostile and nonhostile reactions. Others offer a dual approach to envy, in which envy’s outcomes reflect two types of envy: benign envy, involving upward motivation, and malicious envy, involving hostility against superior others. We compare these competing conceptualizations of envy in an adversarial (yet collaborative) review. Our goal is to aid the consumers of envy research in navigating the intricacies of this debate. We identify agreements and disagreements and describe implications for theory, methodology, and measurement, as well as challenges and opportunities for future work. adversarial collaboration benign envy envy malicious envy social comparison edited-state corrected-proof Yochi Cohen-Charash thanks Jonathan Barsade for suggesting the question–answer format for this article and Paul Spector for his helpful advice. The four of us thank Christine Harris for encouraging us to join forces in this adversarial collaboration and supporting us throughout the process. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding Writing of this manuscript was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG]) awarded to Jens Lange (LA 4029/1-1) and a University of Cologne Advanced Postdoc Grant to Jan Crusius. ORCID iD Jan Crusius https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9403-6084
Funding Information:
Yochi Cohen-Charash thanks Jonathan Barsade for suggesting the question?answer format for this article and Paul Spector for his helpful advice. The four of us thank Christine Harris for encouraging us to join forces in this adversarial collaboration and supporting us throughout the process. Writing of this manuscript was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [DFG]) awarded to Jens Lange (LA 4029/1-1) and a University of Cologne Advanced Postdoc Grant to Jan Crusius.
PY - 2020/1/1
Y1 - 2020/1/1
N2 - The nature of envy has recently been the subject of a heated debate. Some researchers see envy as a complex, yet unitary construct that despite being hostile in nature can lead to both hostile and nonhostile reactions. Others offer a dual approach to envy, in which envy’s outcomes reflect two types of envy: benign envy, involving upward motivation, and malicious envy, involving hostility against superior others. We compare these competing conceptualizations of envy in an adversarial (yet collaborative) review. Our goal is to aid the consumers of envy research in navigating the intricacies of this debate. We identify agreements and disagreements and describe implications for theory, methodology, and measurement, as well as challenges and opportunities for future work.
AB - The nature of envy has recently been the subject of a heated debate. Some researchers see envy as a complex, yet unitary construct that despite being hostile in nature can lead to both hostile and nonhostile reactions. Others offer a dual approach to envy, in which envy’s outcomes reflect two types of envy: benign envy, involving upward motivation, and malicious envy, involving hostility against superior others. We compare these competing conceptualizations of envy in an adversarial (yet collaborative) review. Our goal is to aid the consumers of envy research in navigating the intricacies of this debate. We identify agreements and disagreements and describe implications for theory, methodology, and measurement, as well as challenges and opportunities for future work.
KW - adversarial collaboration
KW - benign envy
KW - envy
KW - malicious envy
KW - social comparison
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85074366457
U2 - 10.31234/osf.io/v3ufs
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/v3ufs
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85074366457
SN - 1754-0739
VL - 12
SP - 3
EP - 21
JO - Emotion Review
JF - Emotion Review
IS - 1
ER -