Assessing Collective Affect Recognition Via the Emotional Aperture Measure Jeffrey Sanchez-Burksa, Caroline A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [166.170.5.57] On: 31 March 2015, At: 09:35 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cognition and Emotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pcem20 Assessing collective affect recognition via the Emotional Aperture Measure Jeffrey Sanchez-Burksa, Caroline A. Bartelb, Laura Reesc & Quy Huyd a Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA b McCombs School of Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA c Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA d INSEAD, Singapore, Singapore Click for updates Published online: 26 Mar 2015. To cite this article: Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Caroline A. Bartel, Laura Rees & Quy Huy (2015): Assessing collective affect recognition via the Emotional Aperture Measure, Cognition and Emotion, DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2015.1015968 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1015968 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions COGNITION AND EMOTION, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1015968 Assessing collective affect recognition via the Emotional Aperture Measure Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks1, Caroline A. Bartel2, Laura Rees3, and Quy Huy4 1Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 2McCombs School of Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA 3Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 4INSEAD, Singapore, Singapore (Received 15 August 2014; accepted 1 February 2015) Curiosity about collective affect is undergoing a revival in many fields. This literature, tracing back to Le Bon’s seminal work on crowd psychology, has established the veracity of collective affect and demonstrated its influence on a wide range of group dynamics. More recently, an interest in the perception of collective affect has emerged, revealing a need for a methodological approach for assessing collective emotion recognition to complement measures of individual emotion recognition. This article addresses this need by introducing the Emotional Aperture Measure (EAM). Three studies provide evidence that collective affect recognition requires a processing style distinct from individual emotion recognition and establishes the validity and reliability of the EAM. A sample of working managers further shows how the EAM provides unique insights into how individuals interact with collectives. We discuss how the EAM can advance several lines of research on collective affect. Keywords: Group emotion; Emotion recognition; Affective tone; Global processing; Emotional intelligence; Social intelligence. Collective affect is enjoying a resurgence of interest seminal work on crowd psychology and Mackay’s across disciplines. From social psychology (e.g., (1852) historic analysis of market behaviour. Con- Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000) to organisational temporary research continues to open new pathways studies (e.g., Bartel & Saavedra, 2000)tobehavi- on the phenomenon of collective affect, from its Downloaded by [166.170.5.57] at 09:35 31 March 2015 oural economics (e.g., Shiller, 2009), there is con- genesis (Barsade, 2002) to its downstream conse- verging evidence of the veracity of collective quences (see Elfenbein, 2007;Mayer,Roberts,& emotional experiences and its effect on social beha- Barsade, 2008). Recently, scholarly attention has viour and decision-making. Indeed, these rich and been aimed at how individuals recognise and make diverse literatures depicting collectives as dynamic sense of collective affect (e.g., Sanchez-Burks & emotional arenas can be traced to Le Bon’s(1897) Huy, 2009), yet the lack of empirically validated Correspondence should be addressed to: Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks, Caroline A. Bartel and Laura Rees contributed equally to this paper. © 2015 Taylor & Francis 1 SANCHEZ-BURKS ET AL. approaches for assessing collective affect recognition Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Sanchez- has likely hampered research involving perceptions Burks & Huy, 2009). of collective affect. This article addresses this need by introducing the Emotional Aperture Measure Perceiving collective affect (EAM). Complementary to research on the experience and effects of collective affect, there is a nascent interest Collective affect in the social perception of collective affect (Coval & Shumway, 2001; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Homan, Collective affect refers to dynamic patterns of Van Kleef, & Sanchez-Burks, 2014; Peterson & affective experiences that unfold in social groups. Kim, 2012; Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). This Converging lines of research have revealed multiple relatively new line of inquiry is not surprising in factors that foster the development of collective light of considerable research documenting the affect. These include exposure of group members diagnostic value of affective cues (Cosmides & to the same affective events, such as task demands Tooby, 2000; Ekman, 1992; Frijda & Mesquita, and interdependencies with other groups (Mackie 1994). The ability to recognise other people’s et al., 2000; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), adherence affective displays, even from mere facial expressions, to mood regulation norms (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; provides a wealth of reliable information about how Rafaeli & Sutton, 1989), and social comparison and others are making sense of events and their likely emotional contagion processes (Barsade, 2002;Bar- behavioural responses to these interpretations sade & Gibson, 1998; Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; (Frijda, 1986). Indeed, individuals have an innate Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994; Sullins, 1991; capacity to communicate their own internal feeling Totterdell, 2000). states through non-verbal gestures as well as to Collective affect is most commonly conceptua- ascertain other’s feelings by observing various verbal lised and measured in terms of central tenden- and behavioural cues (Ekman & Davidson, 1994; cies. The average affective experience present in a Spoor & Kelly, 2004). For example, these cues can collective, sometimes referred to as affective tone, be manifested in facial muscle movements (Darwin, ‐ has been linked to a broad array of group dyna 1872; Ekman & Friesen, 1976; Ekman & Keltner, mics and outcomes, including group conformity 1997; Mandler, Russell, & Fernández-Dols, 1997), (Heerdink, Van Kleef, Homan, & Fischer, 2013), distinct patterns of vocal intonation, rhythm and group creativity (Grawitch, Munz, & Kramer, pausing (Hatfield, Hsee, Costello, Weisman, & 2003), sport team performance (Totterdell, 2000; Denney, 1995; Kappas, Hess, & Scherer, 1991), Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998), and broad body movements (Duclos et al., 1989). Downloaded by [166.170.5.57] at 09:35 31 March 2015 entrepreneurial team success (Perry-Smith & Coff, A 2003 incident in the city of Najaf, Iraq 2011) and collective action tendencies (Van Zome- (Chilcote, 2003), provides a particularly vivid ren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). However, a illustration of how collective affect recognition closer examination of such studies where affect is may be instrumental in assessing collective action measured indicates that, even when there is reason- tendencies and tailoring one’s responses accord- able statistical justification for aggregating group ingly. As captured on film by an international news members’ affective experiences, there remains sub- crew, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Hughes, stantial variation in affective experiences within commander of a battalion known for being ruthless the group. Variation patterns in the distribution and feared in combat, was en route to meet with a of moods or specific emotions, such as the relat- local Imam when an apparently agitated crowd ive proportion of positive and negative affective gathered, blocking the path of Hughes’ battalion. It reactions, are also purported to affect group was later learned that the crowd believed Hughes dynamics and outcomes, including collective and his troops