Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37256842›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Intimate but not intimate: The perils of workplace romance in fostering knowledge sabotage.

Jun Qiu, Fatima Sultana, Shahid Iqbal, Arslan Ayub

RetractedOpen access · goldAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Jun QiuSchool of Nanchang, Institute of Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.
Fatima SultanaLahore Business School, The University of Lahore, Sargodha, Pakistan.
Shahid IqbalManagement Studies Department, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Arslan AyubNational School of Management Studies, The University of Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-5851-2496
Bahria University · PKNanchang Institute of Technology · CNUniversity of Faisalabad · PKUniversity of Lahore · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extant research on workplace ostracism has investigated a victimization perspective to understand ostracism at the cost of examining the perpetrator-centric view of ostracism. The current study draws on the self-categorization theory and the social exchange theory to investigate the harmful effects of workplace romance in cultivating workplace ostracism from the perpetrator's perspective to combat concerns for victim blaming. The study further proposes that workplace ostracism triggered by workplace romance provokes knowledge sabotage. Besides, the study investigates the moderating role of parochial altruism in the underlying linkages. The study utilizes a multisource, time-lagged research design to collect data from employees working in service sector organizations in Pakistan. The study analyzes 343 responses using SmartPLS (v 4.0). The findings of this study reveal that workplace romance elicits workplace ostracism, which, in turn, fosters knowledge sabotage. In addition, the study finds that parochial altruism strengthens the associations between (a) workplace romance and workplace ostracism and (b) workplace romance and knowledge sabotage, mediated by workplace ostracism such that the associations are more potent at higher levels of parochial altruism and vice versa. This is the first study that examines workplace romance as the perpetrator-centric antecedent of workplace ostracism, and parochial altruism exaggerates outgroup ostracism and knowledge sabotage.

Indexed as

WorkplaceHumansPakistan

Identifiers

PMID37256842
PMCPMC10231823
OpenAlexW4378905395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.