Emotion Contagion in Virtual Teams Affect, Performance

1
Emotion Contagionin Virtual Teams Affect,
Performance Self Efficacy

Arik Cheshin Prof. Anat Rafaeli Roy Israely
2
What is team emotion?
3
Bottom Up vs. Top Down
Group 1

OR


What is the emotion of this group?
Group Emotion
4
Emotions in Teams

• Team emotion convergence (Totterdell, et al.,
  1998).
• Observed and Identified by outsiders (Bartel
  Saavedra, 2000)
• Emotional Contagion (Barsade, 2002)

5
Emotion Contagion
Time 2
Time 1
6
What Creates Emotion Contagion?
Unconscious mimicking of others non verbal cues
(Hatfield et al, 1994 Neumann Strack,
2000). Facial Feedback Hypothesis (Strack, et al,
1988)
7
What Creates Emotion Contagion?

• In social situations people blend in and match
  others tendencies.
• Festingers Social Comparison Theory (1954)
• Schachters Psychology of Affiliation (1959)
• Salanick and Pfeffers Social Information
  Processing (1978)

8
Research Question -

• What happens when non verbal cues are absent?

• Virtual Teams
• Can emotion of one member spread to other
  members?

9
Virtual Teams
Technology
Virtual Teams
Globalization
Group Based Work
10
Computer Mediated Communication

• Email
• Chat rooms
• Instant messenger
• Video conferences
• Voice over IP
• Discussion groups

11
Emotion in CMC

• Emotions perceived in email (Byron and Baldridge,
  2005).
• Emoticons -) display nonverbal visual cues,
  however, problematic (Walther Addario, 2001).
• Emotions in CMC negotiation (Van Kleef, De Dreu,
  Manstead 2004).

12
Competing Hypothesis
No Non Verbal Cues OR Virtual Teams
Emotion Contagion
No Non Verbal Cues OR Virtual Teams
Emotion Contagion
13
SHAPE FACTORY TASK

• Simulates an interdependent team of 4 players
  (shapes)
• Each player is a specialist in one field
• A negotiation task
• Has both an individual and a group aspect

14
(No Transcript)
15
Manipulation

• A confederate displayed either Angry or Happy
  emotion based on past research. (Based on
  Barsade, 2002 Kopelman, Rosette, Thompson, 2006
  Van Kleef et al, 2004)

In negotiation tasks angry partners are described
as Stubborn, asking for initial higher prices,
are unwilling to concede
While happy partners are described as
Flexible, willing to give in for an agreement,
cooperative
16
ANGRY Confederate

• Examples of Angry messages
• ????? ??? ????? ????!
• ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???!
• ??? ???? ????? ????!
• Ask for high prices
• Negotiation
• Possibility to reach agreement

17
HAPPY Confederate

• Examples of Happy messages
• ?????! ????? ??? ????? ??? ????????
• ??? ????? ???? ?????!
• ???? ??? ????? ???? -)
• Ask for reasonable price
• Do not negotiate

18
Experiment Time Line
N49 groups (25 happy) 51 female Average age 24.7
Payment
DV
Task
Practice R
Instructions
PANAS
Arrival
1 min
20 min
3 R X 12 min
10 min
3 min
3 min
12 min
19
Nested Model
Individual
Condition
Group
20
Manipulation Check
To what degree did express
anger?
T(47) 13.41 plt0.001
21
Individual Emotion
22
Individual Emotion - Negative Affect
F(1, 243) 37.58 plt0.001
23
Individual Emotion - Positive Affect
F(1, 243) 4.58 plt0.05
24
Group Emotion Bottom up
Rwg(j) 0.87
25
Group Emotion Top Down
to what degree was the atmosphere in the team
Angry/Happy? The positive question was
reversely coded (the two items were negatively
correlated, r-.263, plt0.01)
Rwg(j) 0.77
T(47) 3.36 plt0.01
26
Mimicking???
Cohens Kappa 0.78
27
Discussion

• Emotions can be identified in virtual teams
• Emotion contagion can still occur without non
  verbal cues!
• Social comparison probably plays a larger role
  in emotional contagion than previously thought.
• Mimicking of message tone might play a role in
  emotional contagion as well.

So.. WHY SHOULD WE CARE????
28
Performance

• Affective Events Theory - emotional events in
  work influence performance as they distract
  workers (Weiss, Cropanzano, 1996).
• In the groups, happiness enhances cooperation
  which helps teams perform better (Barsade, 2002).

29
Hypotheses on Performance
30
Individual Performance
T(145) 3.80 plt0.001
31
Group Performance
T(47) 2.97 plt0.001
32
Did
Emotion
Influence
Performance
?
33
Game Data
Might be influenced by confederate behavior
34
Corrected Individual Performance
T(145) 3.09 plt0.001
Angry 128.1524 152.15, Happy unchanged
35
Game Data
Might be influenced by confederate behavior
Based ONLY on individual behavior
36
Discussion

• Emotion effects performance both on the
  individual and the group performance
• Happy emotion might increase cooperation which
  leads to better performance in teams.

But.. WHAT IS THE MECHANISM?
37
Self Efficacy

• ..a judgment of one's ability to execute a
  particular behavior pattern.. (Bandura, 1997)
• Sources of Self Efficacy evaluation
• How well did I do in the past?
• How well did others do?
• What are people saying?
• How do I feel?

38
Hypothesis on Self Efficacy

• Interaction with an angry team member will
  decrease self efficacy when compared to
  interaction with a happy team member.

Self Efficacy
39
Experiment Time Line
Self Efficacy II
N31 groups (16 happy) 53 female Average age 24.6
Payment
DV
Task
Self Efficacy I
Practice R
Instructions
PANAS
Arrival
1 min
20 min
3 R X 12 min
10 min
3 min
3 min
12 min
40
Self Efficacy
F(1, 168) 37.06 plt0.001
41
Did Emotion Effect Self Efficacy?
Explained Variable Self Efficacy
Model 2
Model 1
0.36
0.50
Performance
0.41
-
Others Emotion
33.3
33.7
F
0.40
0.25
R2
0.39
0.24
Adjusted R2
0.15
-
?R2
plt 0.01
42
Mediation
0.50
0.46
-0.53
Emotion 0Happy 1Angry
-0.32
-.08
plt 0.01
43
Summary

• Emotion contagion can occur without non-verbal
  cues (in virtual teams).
• Emotion influences individual and group
  performance.
• Self efficacy is influenced by others emotion.
• Self efficacy mediates the relationship between
  emotion and performance.

44
Future Directions

• Emotion and Behavior will be separated to create

45
Thank you!!!
46
PANAS Individual Affect
?????? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ???
?????? ?? ?????? ???, ??? ??????? ???.
47
Licensing exam

• ????? ???? 30 ???? ?????. ???? ????? ???? ?????
  ????. ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????
  ????? ???? ??????
• ?. ???? ????? ????? ????? ?- 40.
• ?. ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????.
• ?. ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?-30.
• 2. ??????? ?? ????? (order) ?????? ?????, ?????
  ??????. ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???????
  ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????
  ???????, ??? ?????? ???? ???????. ?? ????
  ??????? ??????
• ?. ?????? ?????? ??????? ????.
• ?. ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????
  ??????? ??????.
• ?. ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???.

48
Bottom Up
49
Manipulation Check
Cohens Kappa 0.78
The average of negative messages written by
T(47) 43.64 plt0.001
The average of positive messages written by
 
T(47) 32.16 plt0.001
50
Self Efficacy Questionnaire
????? ????? "???? ??????" ????? ????? ??????
?????. ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????
??????. ???? ????? ???????, ???? ??? ??? ???????
??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?????. (?????
?? 0 ?? 100, ???? 0- ?? ???? ???, ?-100- ????
?????) ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? 5 ??????
??????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???
???? ??? ??????? _____ ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???
??????? _____ ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???????
_____ ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? _____
????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? 9 ????? ???? ????
????? ??????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????
????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? _____ ????? ???
????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? _____ ????? ???
????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? _____ ????? ?? ??
?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? _____