Read below and answer the questions based on the statistical results.

Excerpt from article

Study 2

Panelists are a group of pre-screened respondents who have expressed a willingness to participate in longitudinal online surveys. Before the panelists are recruited, they have to answer a set of profiling questions, which include their gender, age, income, and so on.

We screened potential participants according to whether they were (1) working full-time and (2) willing to complete the survey at two different time points. A total of 209 full-time employees participated in our two-wave study. On average, the employees were 39.67 years old, 52.6% male, and 61.24% European-American; they also had an average work tenure of 17.9 years. All participants were compensated with $7 per time wave at the end of the survey. We adopted a two-wave design to reduce common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). At time 1 (T1), employees completed measures of perceptions of work-related gossip prevalence, negative gossip prevalence, performance pressure, positive gossip prevalence, and gender. At time 2 (T2), approximately 2 weeks later, employees reported their job performance. Employees answered all the questionsbased on their current job and how they actually feel.

Perceptions of Work-Related Gossip Prevalence.To capture work-related gossip prevalence... The five items are Colleague's job performance, "Colleague's attitudes towards work," "Colleague's interpersonal skills," "Colleague's job knowledge and experience," and "Colleague's job morality." Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which the different types of gossip were prevalent in the described consulting firm (1 = non-prevalent to 7 = highly prevalent;?=.87).

Negative Gossip Prevalence. We consulted the literature on workplace gossip (Kurland & Pelled, 2000) to develop a three-item negative gossip prevalence scale. These three items measure negative gossip prevalence at the general level rather than in a specific area and allow us to better capture the phenomenon of negative gossip prevalence. The three items are "Gossips that consist of unfavorable news about others," "Gossips that negatively influence others' reputations," and "Gossips that consist of others' socially disapproved behavior." Employees were asked to indicate the extent to which the different types of gossip were prevalent in their workplace (1 = non-prevalent to 7 = highly prevalent; ? = .93).

Performance Pressure. We measured performance pressure using 6 items. The two items from Eisenberger and Aselage (2009) include "During work, I feel pressured to do a good job" and "During work, I feel I have to perform well". The four items that we developed are as follows: "During work, I feel pressured to produce results"; "During work, I feel pushed to do well"; "During work, I feel a lot of pressure to perform at a high level"; and "During work, I feel compelled to do the best I can". Participants were asked to imagine themselves as employees in the described consulting firm and indicate the extent to which they agree with the statements (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; ? = .89).

A note about the following table from Dr. Burch

Table 2 displays results for nine regressions, each numbered as a different model. Notice the first line, Perceptions of work-related gossip, has results in all nine models, meaning it was included as a predictor variable in all of them. In each set Negative gossip prevalence was added into the second model and then the interaction between the two, called Work-related gossip x negative gossip, is included in the third model in each set. For every regression the DV is listed in the headings. Be careful when reading the numbers in the table because they're not centered under the headings very well. You can ignore the last two rows in the table regarding ?R².

Table 2 Summary of regression results (studies 2 and 3) Variables Study 2 Study 3 DV = performance pressure DV = performance pressure DV = psychological well-being Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 B SE B B SE B B SE B B SE 3 B SE B B SE B B SE 3 B SE B B SE 3 Perceptions of 27 .07 .26** .07 .074 .07 .14 .08 .13* .19 08 .21* .17 .08 .18* .18 .08 .20 -.43 .12 -.30** -.39 .12 -.27** -.4 .12 -.28** work-related gossip Negative gossip .33 .056 .42* * .31 .06 .39** 10 06 .15 .06 .06 .09 -.16 .09 -.15 -.11 .09 -.10 prevalence Work-related gossip 10 .03 .20* * 12 .04 .23*# -.14 .07 -.18* * negative gossip R2 .07 .20 .24 05 .07 .12 09 .11 .14 Adjusted AR- .06 .20 23 .04 05 10 .08 10 12 AR2 .14* .04*# .02+ .05* * .21+ .03* N=209 for study 2. N= 134 for study 3 p