The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Intentional Distortion of Information in Organizational Communication: A Laboratory and Field Investigation
Abstract
This report summarizes the results of several laboratory andfield studies in-vestigating antecedents to and consequences of the intentional distortion of information by senders in organizational communication networks. Lab-oratory studies were used to examine the impact of two interpersonal vari-ables (trust in the receiver, perceived influence of the receiver over the sender) and directionality of information flow (upward, lateral, and down-ward) on senders' propensities to block or suppress information. Field studies were used to establish the external validity of the laboratory investi-gations and to relate information distortion by senders to job satisfaction and performance. Results of these studies demonstrate that (1) a bias exists towards screening certain types of information from upward transmission; (2) low trust in the receiver of a message results in significantly more sup-pression by senders of information, especially information which reflects unfavorably on the senders; and (3) a measure of information distortion is significantly and inversely associated with job satisfaction and individual and group performance. Results of these studies differ in several respects from previous studies of organizational communication. Implications of the results reported here for decision-making are discussed and a model relating antecedents and consequences to information distortion is pre-sented.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical organizations
Athanassiades, J. C. (1973) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/255323 · Cited by 96
Cited by
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909 · Cited by 2,606
The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640 · Cited by 2,337
Employee Voice Behavior: Integration and Directions for Future Research
Morrison, E. W. (2011) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2011.574506 · Cited by 1,803
Knowledge sharing in organizations: A conceptual framework
Ipe, M. (2003) · Human Resource Development Review · doi:10.1177/1534484303257985 · Cited by 1,608
Knowledge Networks: Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies
Hansen, M. T. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771 · Cited by 1,540
Metadata
- Authors
- O'Reilly, C. A.
- Venue
- Human Relations
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1978-02
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-193
- ISSN
- 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-282X
- OpenAlex
- W2114268129
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 49.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Intentional Distortion of Information in Organizational Communication: A Laboratory and Field Investigation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/001872677803100205
- The paper
- O'Reilly, C. A. (1978). The Intentional Distortion of Information in Organizational Communication: A Laboratory and Field Investigation. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677803100205
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.